Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
America Seems to be Going Through an Atheist Phase
news.bbc.co.uk — The US may be one of the most religious countries in the West but is it undergoing a period of doubt? It may be daring to say it but America seems to be experiencing an atheist moment. Although "In God We Trust" was declared the national motto by an act of Congress more than 50 years ago, some considerable doubt has developed of late.
emobrat- 2314 diggs
- digg it
- PaulPinfield, on 10/30/2007, -78/+534Dare we hope for logic rather dogma?
- vap0r, on 10/27/2007, -17/+35We can only hope
- Error601, on 10/25/2007, -182/+27Atheism isn't logical.
- SuperWinner, on 10/24/2007, -35/+105Actually, its the definition of logical.
- hydroplane, on 10/24/2007, -110/+40No, that would be Agnostic. Atheism is just as foolish as any religion out there, just more egocentric.
- Otto, on 10/27/2007, -17/+87No, it just shows that, like many people, you don't actually know what "atheism" means. Or "agnostic" for that matter. Look up the words "theism" and "gnostic" before talking next time.
- Anpheus, on 10/23/2007, -8/+21That's not true, and if you'd like a debate in earnest on why, feel free to reply to this with any form of contact (any IM protocol, email, whatever) and I'll explain to you how atheism is the most logical belief to hold.
- gnick, on 10/23/2007, -9/+39Atheism is NOT a religion, just like monotheism and polytheism are not religions. It's a belief concerning how many gods there are. Just like there are multiple mono- and poly-theistic religions out there, there are multiple atheistic religions.
I have nothing against people claiming agnosticism - It's a fine option. But, actually declaring one's self an atheist is an easy way to completely remove the unknowable from our pursuit of rational reasons to enforce strong morals and ethics. - yojiffyskippy, on 10/24/2007, -53/+8Actually neither Atheism, Agnosticism, Monotheism, nor Polytheism are based on logic. That's the whole problem - none of these "belief" systems are based on logic. In fact, most of these "belief" systems are based only on faith.
- MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4yojiffyskippy, sounds like you're a nihilist.
- MxM111, on 10/27/2007, -2/+11Sigh... atheism is not a belief. it is absence of theism, i.e. absence of believe into good, it DOES NOT MEAN believe into 0 god. That would be strong atheism only...
- kurttrail, on 10/23/2007, -1/+9Agnosticism isn't a belief. It is just an admission of fact. I don't know whether a god or gods exists, so therefore professing knowledge one way or another would be a lie.
- superjer, on 10/23/2007, -4/+0Almost. Atheism means one does not hold a belief in any gods. Only strong atheism asserts there are literally, for sure, no gods. Agnosticism seems to me to give an awful lot of credence to fanciful ideas for no reason. Are you agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or are you pretty damn sure he doesn't exist?
- bolognium, on 10/23/2007, -0/+8@ Otto - Agnostic has nothing to do with Gnosticism... it was coined by Aldous Huxley(or maybe his father) and means "I cannot possibly know what ultimate reality is since I am a part of the system"
I don't know why hydroplanes's comment is being dugg down - he's completely right here. Atheists fall into the same group of people who just cannot admit "I don't know".. and are usually smug about it... - Verdanic, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1@yojiffyskippy
What the hell are you talking about? Most atheists (or okay, every one that I've met including myself) bases their 'beliefs' on science (although they usually aren't considered beliefs but rather factually supported though not 100% detail proofed concepts). Science has absolutely nothing to do with faith - not until you get into social and humanitarian sciences which merely observe different 'faiths'.
Atheism is not a 'belief' system, it's a system by which some or all religious theories are rejected for theories with at least some reasonable evidence. - amorrise, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I truly believe that many religious things could be proved by empirical observation, but the problem is, the observation of feelings, thoughts, etc. can only be done correctly on oneself, and science, atheists, etc. can't accept a sample size of one who is not only the testor, but the one taking the test.
- kurttrail, on 10/23/2007, -46/+24Agnosticism FTW!
It takes faith to believe one has absolute knowledge about the existence of no god/creator.
If one cannot prove either the existence or non-existence of a god/creator, then coming to a belief one way or the other is illogical. The logical most truthful answer is "I Don't Know," therefore Athiests are illogical.- Smills, on 10/27/2007, -7/+49The thing is, you start to look a little bit insane if you are agnostic to everything (eg, invisible teapots, etc). Atheism is NOT contrary to popular belief saying that there is a 100% chance of there being nothing there. Atheists are just sensible enough to realize that there is such a small chance of a god that it is not worth worrying about. It just gets in the way of progress and wastes time. If proof was provided of a god then the atheists would believe in him/her/it. Until then, you have fun drifting along and we atheists will have fun believing what has proof.
- Smills, on 10/23/2007, -2/+12Wow, bad grammar there... Replace with "Atheism is NOT, contrary to popular belief, saying that there is a 100% chance of there being nothing there". I don't know what I was thinking.
- Drahkar, on 10/23/2007, -22/+11In truth being Agnostic would be the more logical of the choices. Being agnostic is stating that you don't have enough information to make an accurate decision whether there is or is not a god or gods. Seems to fall in line with Logic and research. You can't logically state there is no god because there is no proof there isn't one. But you can't say there is one either. So you decide to say you aren't sure and are waiting for more information.
- MacEnvy, on 10/23/2007, -1/+31@Drahkar
No, agnosticism is stating that you think the answer to whether there is a god is unknowable. Gnostic=specific knowledge of god, agnostic=no specific knowledge of god. Theism (both poly- and mono-)=belief in one or more gods, atheism=lack of belief in one or more gods
I don't think there's anything that is fundamentally unknowable given enough time and technology for observation, and I also have a lack of belief in any particular gods. Thus, I am an atheist. That does not mean I need to make a hard declaration that no gods are possible, just that I don't have a belief in any proposed thus far. - wellyuk, on 10/23/2007, -11/+9Agnosticism ftw? Agnosticism is fence sitting. Commit yourselves, damnit!
- gnick, on 10/23/2007, -5/+9Pick a side - We're at war!
=) - Drahkar, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2@ MacEnvy -
Cool. I guess once again I don't fall into a pre-defined classification. This eesm to be a growing habit. Ah well. Because my view is as I stated it. Without an effective means of proving either way I'm not willing to say there is or is not a god(s). I need more information. - ChileanGoD, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3What was the spaghetti monster argument again?...
- kurttrail, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4I guess ya'll that claim to be Atheists don't even know what it means
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=atheist - NozE8, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2"Pick a side - We're at war!"
Yah that seems to be the problem with religion and this world. Instead of tolerance and harmony we have war because you dont believe in the same man in the sky.
- gumbright, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Tragically, Error601 is partially correct. Due to our severe lack of information, agnostic atheism is the logically viable position, in the pure logic sense. We do not have sufficient information to be able to know (agnostic) and there is no evidence to support belief (atheism).
Now in a pratical sense, atheism is easily justifiable as the combination of no evidence for the supernatural and our continuing ability to understand and explain the universe through science continues to push the probability of anything supernatural towards 0.
- hydroplane, on 10/24/2007, -110/+40No, that would be Agnostic. Atheism is just as foolish as any religion out there, just more egocentric.
- AriaStar, on 10/27/2007, -6/+23And some big guy in the sky who ordered his son nailed to a cross and made him come back to life three days later IS logical?
- willwill100, on 10/24/2007, -15/+2yes
- ophello, on 10/23/2007, -15/+7atheism isnt logical any more than love, death, pain, consciousness, and reality are logical, because LOGIC as we define it is circumscribed in the construct and context of a human mind.
open yours.- superjer, on 10/23/2007, -3/+2Actually, logic doesn't care what you think.
- Verdanic, on 10/23/2007, -2/+2You have to open up your mind to be atheist. It takes some thinking to reject the beliefs of the majority of the society you live in (which is the case in much of North America).
- card51short, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2i think it goes both ways
- SuperWinner, on 10/24/2007, -35/+105Actually, its the definition of logical.
- Error601, on 10/24/2007, -103/+32Classic. This is why those of us that are actually scientist laugh at the little arrogant "logic is everything" atheist types. Not educated enough to understand that claiming proof of a negative is not logical and then sticks head in sand when presented with that fact. There's no other conclusion except it's a religion.
- gnick, on 10/24/2007, -18/+107Atheism is not proving a negative. It is believing a negative in light of the complete lack of evidence of a positive. Proof in either direction is impossible - Theism vs atheism is a matter of belief.
Atheism may not be the pinnacle of logic, but constructing fairy tales with nothing to back them up certainly seems like the antitheses of it.- amorrise, on 10/23/2007, -1/+44I am not sure if you are an atheist, but I like that explanation, you don't claim to have proved that there is no God, you simply don't believe in one because you lack evidence to the contrary. That helps me understand a lot better than most of these comments that simply tell me I'm stupid for not understanding.
- fwedwic, on 10/23/2007, -2/+27A+ for thinking
- screensnot, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Except that I do believe it's possible to find proof positive. If there really was an all powerful god, I'm sure he could convince me that he actually exists. The fact that he has not done so, is just one of the reasons I am skeptical.
- amorrise, on 10/23/2007, -1/+44I am not sure if you are an atheist, but I like that explanation, you don't claim to have proved that there is no God, you simply don't believe in one because you lack evidence to the contrary. That helps me understand a lot better than most of these comments that simply tell me I'm stupid for not understanding.
- preisler, on 10/23/2007, -6/+47I've never understood why they try. The onus to prove anything must be on those who claim the positive - like it is in science.
- ScornedPatriot, on 10/23/2007, -12/+47Yeah you're a scientist... and I'm Prince Ludwig Von Humperdink, next in line to the throne of all imaginationland.
- MacEnvy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+14*bow* My liege!
- Otto, on 10/24/2007, -14/+431. You're an idiot.
2. Disbelief in a thing is not the same as belief in the lack of that thing.
In other words, atheists do not believe that there is no god. They just don't believe that there is. It's very simple, so please pay attention.- fwedwic, on 10/24/2007, -35/+4dude what kinda spin irrational explanation are you trying to whip up now..?
- hplasm, on 10/23/2007, -11/+4In fact, atheists don't have to disbelive in god(s). They just don't worship any. Like not having a car- it doesn't mean that you believe cars don't exist; you just don't have one. Or, in the case of gods, need one.
- nicksauce, on 10/23/2007, -15/+9Ah yes, those quality scientists at jesus university, where you can get a 2 year degree in thrutoholgoy.
- GuyeNoir, on 10/23/2007, -8/+56As a scientist, shouldn't you know that the burden of proof lies with the people making silly claims of invisible people in the sky? You're right, we can't prove a negative, and we don't have to.
- gnick, on 10/23/2007, -3/+49I find that offensive. Only a few of my gods live in the sky and the fact that I'm the only one that can see them does NOT make them invisible.
- GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 10/23/2007, -8/+36Atheism is NOT a belief. It is unfortunate that it even has a name. I don't say I am an Atheist. I simply say I do not believe in god.
Why name something that is nothing. Why are we naming a group of people who are not something.
If you have a bag of chips, everything in the bag is chips. Right? Is every thing outside of the bag AtheiChips?
Silly right?- Renshai, on 10/23/2007, -13/+4If "Atheism is NOT a belief" you cannot then immediately say that "I do not believe in god." Obviously you believe that there is no God, which is a view that cannot be proven. The question is unanswerable. There could exist a God that set in motion all the scientific laws and matter that we have now. The answer is that agnosticism is the view that requires no faith or beliefs.
- Cenobite, on 10/23/2007, -1/+12He never said that he believes there is NO god, he merely said that he does not believe in god. There is a difference, and subtle though it may be, it lies at the heart of the fallacy of virtually every "atheism is illogical" argument.
- dinostabOMG, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6Haha, I love your bag of chips. But you're right - why name something that is nothing? I suspect the reason is so that idiots have a label for reasonable people and can thereby denigrate/cast aside the whole group.
- Genady, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Why name something that is nothing? Zero revolutionaized mathemetics. Talk about logical.....
- Ramble, on 10/23/2007, -5/+5Yes, of course you're a scientist.
Listen, atheists claim there is no God, even though they shouldn't because there is overwhelming negative evidence that the Christian God does not exist, radio carbon dating, the fossil record, etc. all point to the fact that the events described in Genesis did not happen.
If you were a scientist you'd understand that, there's a point in logic and reasoning when you can just say it's the truth due to the minute chance that all this evidence and all these results are just random errors.- superjer, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1Only strong atheists claim there is no god. Regular atheists just don't believe in any of the gods that others have proposed, just like you probably don't believe in the invisible pink unicorn in my bathroom.
- superjer, on 10/23/2007, -1/+0I just talked the invisible pink unicorn in my bathroom and he says he loves you, anyway. (double post, sorry)
- scottknick, on 10/23/2007, -4/+17You can't prove a negative, but you can prove something is logically contradictory and thus impossible. And the Judeo-Christian God is just such a logical contradiction. Yahweh no more exists than does a four-sided triangle. For the complete argument, see this: digg.com/general_sciences/Who_says_you_can_t_disprove_the_existence_of_God
- Renshai, on 10/23/2007, -7/+5True, but you cannot in fact prove that all gods or the idea of a god is not possible. It is a fundamentally unanswerable question. Thus if the definition of Atheism is knowing that there are no gods at all, Yahweh or otherwise, then it follows that Atheism is a faith based belief.
- scottknick, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3You can certainly define God into existence -- "he's the life force in all things" etc. etc. -- but that's not really what people are asserting when say they believe in God. It's not the atheist's job to pre-empt all possible definitions of the word God -- just disprove the ones that are in actual use.
- Renshai, on 10/23/2007, -7/+5True, but you cannot in fact prove that all gods or the idea of a god is not possible. It is a fundamentally unanswerable question. Thus if the definition of Atheism is knowing that there are no gods at all, Yahweh or otherwise, then it follows that Atheism is a faith based belief.
- kurttrail, on 10/24/2007, -30/+5Atheism isn't quite a religion, as religions are organized, like the mafia. However you the gist of what you are saying is correct, Atheism is faith-based belief.
- Scienceisfun, on 10/23/2007, -3/+3Every fricking time! You can prove negatives! Negatives and positives are the same! All logical statements can be rephrased in positive OR negative terms using a double negation. Stop propagating the god damn fallacy, and most certainly stop using a logical fallacy to call into question another's logic! The reason proof of god is outside the realm of logic is because you don't ascribe he/she/it a set of properties. If your god has a direct influence on the universe -- ie. he heals those who pray to him, causes extreme weather, helps you to win the Superbowl, or even steals souls from this universe and moves them to Hades or Valhalla, you have ascribed your god a logical set of parameters which you can test. If you believe in this sort of god, and in the face of all the evidence showing that this is not the case, then atheism is an entirely rational position. This is why we've rejected the ideas of Zeus and Thor, for instance. If, on the other hand, you believe in a god who exists outside of present, future or even fundamentally physically possible observation techniques, who by extension can have no input into your everyday existence (which of course is an observation), then yes, it is a question of metaphysics, and you'd be wise to be agnostic. . But that's only because in such a case, you genuinely could never know, even in principle. And, if said god has no influence on your existence, does it matter? Just give his eigenstate a 1/sqrt(2) weighting and be done with it.
- SuperWinner, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Ok, prove that I don't have an invisible fire breathing dragon on my garage... whos the smart pants now?
- gnick, on 10/24/2007, -18/+107Atheism is not proving a negative. It is believing a negative in light of the complete lack of evidence of a positive. Proof in either direction is impossible - Theism vs atheism is a matter of belief.
- SuperWinner, on 10/27/2007, -27/+203Lets hope its not just a phase..
- empiric, on 10/23/2007, -24/+4How could it possibly be for more than 200 years?
Oh, you don't mean you personally, nor all of your friends, nor every athiest on Earth--you mean in the Dawkins "meme" sense, and seriously think you are using any less metaphysical motivators than theists... I guess. - S1ngular1ty1, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I was thinking the same thing superwinner.
- jhshukla, on 10/24/2007, -6/+1Have faith in God.
- empiric, on 10/23/2007, -24/+4How could it possibly be for more than 200 years?
- Genady, on 10/23/2007, -22/+2"Logic.... Logic is the begining of wisdom."
There must be some sort of 'Middle way' between the logic of atheism and the faith of believers. I wonder what this 'Middle Way' could be....- Valmorian, on 10/23/2007, -5/+11Is there such a thing as "too much reason"? I know there is "too much faith."
- Genady, on 10/23/2007, -8/+22To Quote:
A man approached the Buddha and wanted to have all his philosophical questions answered before he would practice.
In response, the Buddha said, "It is as if a man had been wounded by a poisoned arrow and when attended to by a physician were to say, 'I will not allow you to remove this arrow until I have learned the caste, the age, the occupation, the birthplace, and the motivation of the person who wounded me.' That man would die before having learned all this. In exactly the same way, anyone who should say, 'I will not follow the teaching of the Buddha until the Buddha has explained all the multiform truths of the world' - that person would die before the Buddha had explained all this."- fwedwic, on 10/23/2007, -6/+2all sounds like a waste of time to me, but thats just me i guess ;)
- GuyeNoir, on 10/23/2007, -5/+8I'd consider attempting to heal a poisoned wound a slightly different task then choosing a belief system to base one's entire life on.
But just for arguement's sake, lets look at that little philosophical nugget from the nurse's perspective: If it were me, I would never even attempt to heal someone else's wound if I didn't of a proven medical technique (proven with solid physical evidence) to use. As for the issue of time, a good nurse (or doctor) would look up this technique (and a plethora of other techniques for other wounds and illneses) BEFORE the onset of the wound in order to be prepared. That's why doctors go to school for so long, and why the best doctors are highly specialized. There's a lot to learn.
And if I were the wounded fellow, that's exactly the way I would want it.
- aboron, on 10/23/2007, -2/+9"I find your lack of faith disturbing"
- scoot2006, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1cheers for the reference
- Veritate, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3"Your overconfidence is your weakness"
"Your faith in your friends is yours" - licoricewhip, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5"Alright, kid. Let's blow this thing and go home."
/Euphamism
- Genady, on 10/23/2007, -8/+22To Quote:
- amorrise, on 10/23/2007, -4/+1Dugg up for the Star Trek quote
- licoricewhip, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Careful if you intend to start a Star Trek versus Star Wars flame war!
- Valmorian, on 10/23/2007, -3/+9I'm sorry to say that the Buddha has no idea what he is talking about in that quote. Or rather, it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Reason isn't about not doing anything until you understand every bit of information, it's about a method by which one reaches knowledge.- Genady, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Who are you? Ed Gruberman?
- Valmorian, on 10/23/2007, -5/+11Is there such a thing as "too much reason"? I know there is "too much faith."
- CraigJ, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5Dare! Dare!
- MrFlesh, on 10/27/2007, -26/+70Aethiests can look down on the religous and religion because we have 2,000 years of evidence showing how hypocritical, fear mongering, intolerance and hate breeding religion is. Aethiests don't hate religion or the religous...we have absolute contempt for them.
- eclectro, on 10/27/2007, -46/+15So atheism is all about contempt? Finally, we have some truth here.
- Jolene, on 10/23/2007, -5/+44Atheism is nothing more than the non-belief in a god or gods. Atheism holds no morals, no ethics. Those are determined by the person. Not by atheism.
- Genady, on 10/27/2007, -16/+5You're right. If only more atheists would hold to that ideal as Christians attempt to emulate Christ.
- ICSU, on 10/27/2007, -5/+5You mean Jesus "worship me or go to hell" Christ? no, thanks
- Jolene, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1jaurl.
There is no proof of jesus' existance, and on top of that the things he said were not all that great. So to say you follow his example really isn't saying anything good. Why not just say "I try to follow the good examples some characters through history have shown us"?
Try this for some examples of the bad things "jesus" said. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermo ... - insllvn, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Jaurl, I have heard a very interesting theory. Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure and indeed taught a message of piece and brotherly love. He never claimed to be god or gods son. He was simply a beloved teacher who preached peace. He learned of this philosophy in India after fleeing from Roman controlled Judea with his parents, Joseph and Mary. In India he studied at a Buddhist temple. Then he returned and taught a belief structure that grew from the philosophy of Buddhism and the tradition of Judaism. About 300 years after he was crucified for the things he said, and the threat he was believed to represent to Roman rule, A Roman emperor named Constantine assembled a group of powerful aristocrats in Nicea and wrote a creed. They professed their "belief" in Jesus (now) Christ's divinity. They assembled a series of books and letters, none written within less than a hundred years of the death of Jesus of Nazareth, and proclaimed them to be the gospel truth. Thus Christianity was born.
I am to tired to find citations, but if you are interested let me know and I will look tomorrow. - Parkinsons, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Jolene ^^
Saying Jesus never existed is like saying Socrates never exited, its foolish. Also I think you mislinked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount is the right one.
Jaurl ^
not all bible's are translated from other translated bible's. With the discorvery of the dead sea scrolls and such we can now translate an accurate text. - Jolene, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Jaurl:
Please show me proof of the existence of 'jesus'. Show me contemporary writings from the time that support his existence. What is written in the bible was written AFTER the supposed time 'jesus' existed.
The bible shows that all people are equal? Umm... I guess women aren't a part of these "people" you speak of. Cause you know, I don't think what is said in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 shows equality. Or, you know Deuteronomy 22:23-24 or Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Exodus 21:7-11 What about Leviticus 20:13 or Leviticus 20:27 or Zechariah 13:3 and Deuteronomy 22:20-21 rape and murder is NOT equality.
How about slavery? Leviticus 25:44-46 Exodus 21:2-6 Exodus 21:20-21 Ephesians 6:5 1 Timothy 6:1-2 Slavery is NOT equality.
If this book was not written for anyone alive today, do not read it. Do not open it and use it as a guide on how to live your life. If it is susceptible to such gross misinterpretation, how do you know that YOUR interpretation is correct? If you say yours is correct (this 'over all message of equality') and yet mine is wrong (That its all just made up, maybe even just a story for entertainment that was taken way too seriously.) you are just full of your self. I agree that it was never written for people of this time, and because of that it should not be used as a life guide. The people of the time thought the earth was flat, that rabbits chewed cud, these things are just incorrect, which just makes the rest of it suspect.
insllvn: I've heard of that hypothesis before. It holds no more ground than the actual existence of jesus. There is just no proof of it. It is a very interesting idea tho.
Parkinsons: No, I linked correctly.
Firstly, I'm sure you know of the famous bust of Socrates that was made in the 1st century. I don't think you would bring him up if you didn't. It is more likely that Socrates existed. I don't remember there ever being claims that Socrates walked on water, or broke fish and bread to feed plenty more than should be able to be fed by the amount claimed he had. In fact, I don't think it was ever claimed he came back from the dead was it? In the end tho, does it really matter if Socrates existed? Do people wage wars over him? I was shot at because I didn't believe in YAHWEH, but has anyone been shot at because they don't believe in Socrates?
- dinostabOMG, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7Well, to be fair, you give us a lot to be contemptuous about.
- Jolene, on 10/23/2007, -5/+44Atheism is nothing more than the non-belief in a god or gods. Atheism holds no morals, no ethics. Those are determined by the person. Not by atheism.
- robisfunky, on 10/23/2007, -14/+9 Speak for yourself, moron.
- cmorwhat, on 10/23/2007, -5/+17I agree with eclectro. Some times i just want to slap a fundamental christian and scream WHAT THE ***** DO YOU HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!!!!??? but i dont because that brings me to their level. think bill o'reilly. try to be the utter opposite of that piece of close minded trash. Im from texas. a state not famous for being open and liberal. and for that, i apologize
- MacEnvy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+12Move to Austin. Nice place, good folks, an oasis of progressive thought in (literally) a desert of regressives.
- netant, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Resident Evil: Extinction must be a popular flick in your neighborhood.
- Jolene, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Are you in the Austin area? Member of the ACA? I listen to their podcasts and lectures. They do some great stuff. If you're near the area you should check them out, if you aren't already a member.
- MacEnvy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+12Move to Austin. Nice place, good folks, an oasis of progressive thought in (literally) a desert of regressives.
- empiric, on 10/23/2007, -29/+3And, remarkably, you got your wish. An entire -county- that was officially atheistic.
It was called the Soviet Union.
Is something about its economic stagnation and mass killings of its own citizens discouraging you from extolling its virtues?- JoeNapalm, on 10/23/2007, -1/+22
Actually, we DID get a whole country that had freedom of - and FROM - religion.
It was called the United States of America.
-Jn- - Trublmakr, on 10/23/2007, -3/+8Yeah yeah yeah,..blah blah
(Irrational Fear) Athiesm = communism! (Irrational Fear.)
Thats old and tired now.
By the way, I spoke to god and he's angry with you for being arrogant. He wants you to give me $500 as penance.
- JoeNapalm, on 10/23/2007, -1/+22
- foolonthehill, on 10/23/2007, -1/+15MrFlesh you shock but don't surprise me. Every belief system has its adherents who consider themselves superior to others and it appears that atheism is no exception. I am an atheist, but I don't think I hold anyone in absolute contempt, certainly not based on their religion alone. There are religious people I strongly resent, but most of the time it's because of attitudes about their beliefs that are rather similar to the attitude you show here.
- withincontext, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1It seems to me like nobody ***** likes each other, regardless of the group. We all turn our noses up at each other. I'm not saying it's like Israel vs. Palestine here in the States, but it seems systemic of a larger issue with humanity.
Honestly, is there any hope?
- withincontext, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1It seems to me like nobody ***** likes each other, regardless of the group. We all turn our noses up at each other. I'm not saying it's like Israel vs. Palestine here in the States, but it seems systemic of a larger issue with humanity.
- art42, on 10/23/2007, -1/+13Religion has been around FAR longer than 2,000 years. Your post makes you look as bad as *some* religious fanatics.
- yfguitarist, on 10/23/2007, -4/+6"hypocritical, fear mongering, intolerance and hate breeding religion is. Aethiests don't hate religion or the religous...we have absolute contempt for them."
Responding to hate with more hate isn't ideal. At least you admit that, instead of the hypocritical diggers that slam religion than pretend to be open-minded and tolerant. I see an amazing amount of intolerance and hypocrisy towards religious people on here.
- eclectro, on 10/27/2007, -46/+15So atheism is all about contempt? Finally, we have some truth here.
- Jolene, on 10/23/2007, -2/+15I'd like to take the physical challenge please.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/23/2007, -3/+4Might be one of the most religious countries in the west? As if theres any doubt.
- FACT, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4hispanic countries are generally as religious or more religious than the US
- empiric, on 10/23/2007, -7/+6Dare we hope you learn enough logic to know what a "false dichotomy" is?
- pigfister, on 10/24/2007, -14/+14Religion is all fake and is just there to control the population: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=55474814 ...
- Waterrat, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Along with public education and TV and fear mongering.
Read "Understanding Power" Chomsky. - strikertp, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Never post something by nuffrespect ever...
He uses fake accounts to increase the prominence of his fearmongering videos (which are total BS)
- Waterrat, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Along with public education and TV and fear mongering.
- angelwings1777, on 10/23/2007, -14/+1All I want is for someone to explain to me what is so great about atheism.
- Cyberen, on 10/23/2007, -1/+13No tithes to a church, nowhere you have to be, nothing to dress up for.
Think of the time and energy you'd save not worshipping anything!- Waterrat, on 10/24/2007, -3/+9 Not to mention the money you save...And no longer having to hear some over paid dude tell you you are going to hell. or whomever he disagrees with is going to hell (like homosexuals,atheists,etc. ) And your kids won't be brainwashed to believe in religion either.
it's so nice to get up on Sundays and to know I never have to go to church...Stopped going when I was 13,and have not missed it a bit. - angelwings1777, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Those things are not a necessity of being a Christian. But I wasn't even asking about a particular faith. I was asking about the benefits of believing that God doesn't exist.
- Waterrat, on 10/24/2007, -3/+9 Not to mention the money you save...And no longer having to hear some over paid dude tell you you are going to hell. or whomever he disagrees with is going to hell (like homosexuals,atheists,etc. ) And your kids won't be brainwashed to believe in religion either.
- DephexTwin, on 10/23/2007, -1/+13Some people think it is more important to know the truth and prepare as best one can... for atheists, it's not that the lack of a God is so attractive, just that the evidence is so convincing. It's hard to realize certain things about the world and then go back because the truth isn't as nice-sounding as, say, Christianity.
- angelwings1777, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1I find the evidence for the existence of God much more convincing than the evidence that God doesn't exist. I often think it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer in God.
Secondly Christianity doesn't just sound nice. Christianity is a call to be ridiculed and hated by most of the planet. Jesus said, "Pick your cross and follow me." He never said being a follower of the Way would be easy or pleasant. That is not to say that there is no joy in being a Christian, but being a Christian isn't about being happy. It is about loving God and loving others whether you are "Happy" or not.
- angelwings1777, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1I find the evidence for the existence of God much more convincing than the evidence that God doesn't exist. I often think it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer in God.
- ElwinRansom, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Being true is a pretty great thing. Why do facts about the world have to be "great" to be acceptable?
- angelwings1777, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1How do you know the statement, "There is no God," is true?
- Cyberen, on 10/23/2007, -1/+13No tithes to a church, nowhere you have to be, nothing to dress up for.
- mwalker05, on 10/22/2007, -8/+2maybe you could, you know, use grammar the next time you want to sound smart.
- kp606, on 10/24/2007, -8/+6Comments like this only further ignorance about religion.
The belief that religious dogmas do not, at all, draw from logic is absurd. Moreover, the belief that some dogmas are not naturally logical (or that they just preach a side on a completely netural issue) is also, being ignorant. There are intelligent theologians, too. - parabolee, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3Oops I buried you when I meant to dig. Damn buttons are too close!
- Genady, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble28.htm
The nugget:
"If you are very rational and you have figured everything out, then you don’t know what to do when people get emotional. If somebody starts crying, you think, ‘What am I supposed to do?’ Maybe you say, ‘Cheer up; it’s all right, dear. It’ll be all right, there’s nothing to cry about.’ If you are very attached to rational thoughts, then you just tend to dismiss it with logic, but emotions do not respond to logic. Often they react to logic, but they do not respond. Emotion is a very sensitive thing and it works in a way that we sometimes do not comprehend. If we have never really studied or tried to understand what it is to feel life, and really opened and allowed ourselves to be sensitive, then emotional things are very frightening and embarrassing to us. We don’t know what they are all about because we have rejected that side of ourselves."- nouns, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Word.
- insllvn, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1So?
- SuperWinner, on 10/23/2007, -6/+1My cat's breath smells like cat food.
- insllvn, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Just to add another layer to the debate, although I highly doubt the existence of a god, if he or they are real he/they are NOT benevolent. Let us assume there is an omnipotent all powerful all knowing being. Know let us assume he gives the tiniest two ***** what happens in one minor corner of his/their universe on one little wet rock circling a hydrogen reaction. Let us further assume he talks to a select few counseling them on the correct way to live their lives and how to end up forever in his presence and rewarded in a magical "life after death" scenario. Based on all the evidence I would say he/they are either incompetent (impossible; omniscient & omnipotent remember?) or evil. It looks for all the world as though he/they have pitted mankind against itself for his/their own judgmental amusement. I see no evidence for god. If there is an all powerful being watching over the earth, it seems more like a star trek villain.
IANAS, but I have always had an interest in the sciences. I observe in them one constant rule: simple builds towards complex. Atoms make molecules make cells make organism, and organisms evolve. This, I think, is why religion abhors evolution. To accept that the very nature of the universe, at the early moments of the big bang, existed only in simplicity flies in the face of an omnipotent creator being who sprang from nothing. If everything started out simple and moved towards the complexity we observe today then the idea of god or gods are simply unnatural. I am an atheist. I don't believe that such a thing as a god exists. I think the world is far stranger and more complex than that. I also don't think science has all the answers yet. I think someday it will. Those who say we can never know everything underestimate how long forever really is. Forever is a really long time. So long in fact that we cannot even imagine it. We can only express infinity as an abstract idea, because to our limited minds that is all it can be. We must evolve to understand.
I think, or perhaps i hope, that this sudden surge of atheism is a trend more than a phase. I think that what has happened is the intellectual elite (when did that become a dirty word by the way?) have realized that religion won't just go away on its own. I have read several posts defending the freedom of religion, but this is the wrong way to look at it. Religion is being given a pass, as always. Ideas should be free, but religion, particularly of the organized variety, is self-perpetuating. No one speaks of the need for geocentric freedom. No one weeps for the loss of flat-earth theory freedom. These views have simply been marginalized. So should the notion of god. If not because of the evil done in the name of religion (ask me for a list and i will compile one but i think you can all come up with something) than rather because it is simply ignorance.
A much wiser man than I once said: Imagine no religion, it's easy if you try. No hell below us above us only sky. Imagine all the people living for today.
Can you imagine that? Think of what we as a people could accomplish. United we (all 6.5 billion) could do some pretty cool *****. At least I imagine we would... - diggimator, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Indeed phase seems to be an odd choice of word. We went through a Cold War paranoia phase, which was created artificially by a US-vs-USSR military standoff. During that time, being religious became more strongly associated with patriotism.
- AmishRefugee, on 10/30/2007, -94/+439phase?
Are you saying that more people not having their heads stuck up their asses their entire life is a phase?- eclipse007, on 10/27/2007, -35/+77So those people who are religious have "their heads stuck up their asses" ?
Now I don't believe in ANYTHING but I respect others and never managed to understand why so many atheists look down at everybody who does not share their view of the world, kind of reminds me of... ummm... some religious people maybe?
PS: I have quite a few very nice atheist and very nice religious friends and enjoy all the discussions/arguments that we have, but the moment one starts making fun of or insulting another, he/she has to apologize or leave this circle of friends.- commernie, on 10/31/2007, -46/+12It's difficult not to be smug. We KNOW that "god" doesn't exit and they THINK that it does. How can we respect that not look down on them? Wouldn't you look down on someone who believes in Zeus or in unicorns or in the flying spaghetti monster?
And why shouldn't we make fun? When contending scientific theories or political currents arise they fiercely put each other down and even make fun of each other. Why should religion be exempt to this? They can make fun of us if they want, and we can ridicule and put religion down the way it deserves!- eclipse007, on 10/28/2007, -6/+22Assuming the goal is informing the misinformed,
making fun or insulting is against that goal, it makes us look weak, and implies that we do not have any solid argument and therefore have to take an inferior approach, but that is simply not true. We know that we are on the right side and we know that we are able to prove it.
You can not convince people by trying to degrade them. Just because someone is mis-informed does not mean they are any less of a being than us. We sit with them (and not above them) and try to provoke thought and make them use their brains.
The moment we start calling them names, they stop listening and fight back and that is when we failed that goal.- JQP123, on 10/31/2007, -6/+2"Assuming the goal is informing the misinformed..."
I really couldn't care less about the misinformed if it wasn't for their influence on the world that I have to live in. My primary goal is to limit the influence of religious idiots like Bush.
"We sit with them (and not above them) and try to provoke thought and make them use their brains."
Nice theory. Reality is, it's hard to reason with someone who's been brainwashed to reject all logic, reason, evidence, anything that contradicts their religious beliefs. The sad fact is that many of these people have simply lost their ability to reason. That part of the brain has been neutered by years of faith based initiatives and training. Name calling and ridicule is like shock therapy --- crude and probably pointless but it's about the only remaining tool to work with.
- JQP123, on 10/31/2007, -6/+2"Assuming the goal is informing the misinformed..."
- crystalmath, on 10/28/2007, -3/+25We don't KNOW *****.
- Smills, on 10/31/2007, -4/+17Also, we do not KNOW that there is no god. You can never be 100% certain of anything and it is just not worth closing your mind completely. Basically, there is such a ridiculously small chance of there being a god that it is ludicrous to even consider believing in it with the facts we currently have.
If some facts appear that start to show proof for god then yes, maybe I will become agnostic in my belief in god. But till then it is just rediculous to waste time considering it. If you waste time considering whether god is worth believing in then you damn well better do it for all the other deitys the human race has imagined up (hint, there is a lot of them). And additionally all the deitys we haven't yet thought up (hint, there is an infinite amount of them). - BigW, on 10/27/2007, -7/+10Hmm, would you care then to explain why the universe exists? You must know then why the big bang happened and what set it off? You know the final fate of the universe?
Oh, you don't know any of that do you? You just know that you have no proof of God existing. That doesn't mean you know there is no God, and without answers to my questions above you cannot prove it.
You don't KNOW anything.....- ashmael, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1Neither do you, but you're this close to using that ignorance as a place to nurse your own myths.
- yojiffyskippy, on 10/22/2007, -3/+8For the record, I'm an Agnostic but there does seem to be something wrong with your "logic". Proving a negative such as "god doesn't exist" isn't possible from a logical standpoint. So stating that we "KNOW" god doesn't exist is just as wrong as saying we "KNOW" god does exist.
- robisfunky, on 10/28/2007, -2/+10 Wow, that was the weakest argument for atheism I have ever heard.
- aboron, on 10/23/2007, -2/+0@Smills I'd be willing to venture the number of dieties not thought up yet is provably finite. However, i'd grant that the numbers could easily exceed the capacity of one human individual to evaluate all of them in their own lifetime.
- Smills, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Sigh... If you are going to use that argument then almost everything is finite. By infinite I mean that there isn't really any sort of a number that can be placed on it to describe the amount of deitys that can be thought up
- GuyeNoir, on 10/28/2007, -2/+13"1000 years ago, everybody KNEW that the earth was flat. 500 years ago, everybody KNEW that the sun rotated around the Earth... Imagine what you'll KNOW tomorrow" - Men in Black
- codelogic, on 10/28/2007, -0/+19You're not an atheist if you "KNOW that "god" doesn't exit". Atheism is the absence of belief, not the belief in absence; subtle but important difference.
- rebornempowered, on 10/22/2007, -7/+0So, you KNOW that God doesn't exist. Therefore, you have all knowledge. That means you are God and you have proven yourself wrong.
- gnick, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7We THINK that "god" doesn't exist and they KNOW that it does. See what I did thar?
Please don't defend atheism. You're making it too difficult for the rest of us.
- eclipse007, on 10/28/2007, -6/+22Assuming the goal is informing the misinformed,
- JQP123, on 10/23/2007, -11/+4"... kind of reminds me of... ummm... some religious people maybe?"
There's your answer. Atheists aren't doing anything that religious folk haven't been doing for thousands of years ... trying their beliefs into politics, education, medicine, government, and every other aspect of society. We've got a lot of dis-respecting to do before we can even begin to compare to what religion has done.- univers3man, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4I thought the point of taking the higher ground was being a man about it. If your trying to say that atheism is better, than why stoop to the level of "religious people" and start dis-respecting people and their view points. Oh, wait. Your just as bad as they are, just wearing a different flag.
- JQP123, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2"Your just as bad as they are, just wearing a different flag."
Atheists are people too; subject to all the common human frailties. Except we don't claim to have an invisible friend who guides and controls our lives. We don't claim to be morally superior but we don't routinely make outlandish promises that we can't keep. We don't know what happens when you die. We don't promise eternal life to those who join in our fantasy. All we have to offer is the prospect of a more sane, logical and more peaceful world in which to live. Our flag is based on logic and reason instead of superstition. If that makes us "just as bad as they are", then so be it.- netant, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1"Except we don't claim to have an invisible friend who guides and controls our lives."
Neither do Existentialist Christians. - Monkeywithacold, on 10/23/2007, -1/+0But you do have the same elitist attitude that your way is right, and everyone else is wrong...Making you so much better.
Normally its the atheists telling the theists to open their minds. In this case I would say you need to open up your mind.
Theists are people too :) - JQP123, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1"But you do have the same elitist attitude..."
Is it elitist to prefer logic and reason to superstition? If so, then I will gladly be elitist.
"Making you so much better."
Not better, just less arrogant. It's hard to imagine anything more arrogant than claiming to know and have a special relationship with the creator of the universe ... all without even a shred of evidence or proof.
"In this case I would say you need to open up your mind."
To what? Superstition and the supernatural? Would it be too "elitist" of me to ask for a logical reason why I should?
- netant, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1"Except we don't claim to have an invisible friend who guides and controls our lives."
- Verdanic, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1It's really hard not to think that. I don't, but I can't help but feel that they're wasting their time - hard to explain without sounding like an *****, and I do respect religion and would never discriminate by any means - verbally or otherwise, but when you have thought things through and through for years and your mind rests on the atheist view of things, everything else seems totally fictional.
I try to keep an open mind about it, but my thoughts all reside in the circle of atheism.
- danconia, on 10/31/2007, -6/+5Just remember that respect is EARNED. I'm not sure how the religious community has earned any during my lifetime...
- gmprunner, on 10/27/2007, -1/+7I don't see how atheists have earned any either.
- Verdanic, on 10/27/2007, -1/+5This isn't a ***** team sport.
- jefferygomer, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1There is a difference between having respect, and being an *****.
- gmprunner, on 10/27/2007, -1/+7I don't see how atheists have earned any either.
- Robbothehood, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4Yes we'll all be living in such a beautiful world where people are hated until they earn your respect.
- Endemoniada, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Too many atheists are snowballing themselves into rolling balls of contempt-of-christians. This, of course, is not good in any way, but I still understand them. To me, a christian doesn't make any sense. I look at them the same way I look at someone saying "There's a magic dragon in my garage that only I can see, and he works miracles for me everyday, only they're invisible, and he answers my prayers, but only sometimes, and his logic is his own, and no one can ever question him". To me, they're only kidding themselves, but to a degree where it starts to make them dangerous to society as a whole.
To me, atheism isn't about hating christians (or muslims, or jews, or...), but hating religion. My own reasoning and my own logical conclusions tell me that religion isn't necessary and is, in many cases, even a danger to everyone.
I'm not out to insult anyone, but I'm not going to stand quiet just because what I have to say might offend someone either. It's a trade off.
- commernie, on 10/31/2007, -46/+12It's difficult not to be smug. We KNOW that "god" doesn't exit and they THINK that it does. How can we respect that not look down on them? Wouldn't you look down on someone who believes in Zeus or in unicorns or in the flying spaghetti monster?
- alvinrod, on 10/23/2007, -8/+13Don't be so angry about it.
After all, it's only a phase :P - krnldmp, on 10/23/2007, -12/+5It not a phase. After you get rid of the Christians that are the way they are because they're afraid to admit what they really think (Not of GOD), USA has been mostly atheist for a hundred years. The only difference between then and now is we have the internet to prove it.
- mwalker05, on 10/23/2007, -3/+5wtf? mostly atheist? obviously your head isnt up your ass since you are talking out your ass
- pigfister, on 10/24/2007, -15/+14Religion is all fake and is just there to control the population: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=55474814 ...
- orthodoxDrew, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4long live the Enligtenment!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enlightenmen ... - digmshiphter, on 10/29/2007, -8/+8Thank you for pointing out that Mother Teresa, Pascal, Billy Graham, Ronald Reagan, JFK, Francis Collins, George R. Price, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Jr. and C.S. Lewis, and Einstein all had their heads up their asses.
- houndawg87, on 10/23/2007, -3/+2If you want somebody to list all of the historical figures (esp. prominent scientists) who were atheist, it's only too easy. On either side of the game, that's a silly debate to get into.
You might be interested in this though.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655 ... - AceLy, on 10/23/2007, -1/+10Einstein? That's a slippery example.
- kettlehead, on 10/29/2007, -1/+10"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein. - ICSU, on 10/23/2007, -3/+5Einstein wasn't religious and Mother Teresa is a fraud. Nevertheless, that's not even the point.
- insllvn, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2I am willing to say that they all (with the exception of Einstein; see kettlehead's comment) had their heads up their asses.
- houndawg87, on 10/23/2007, -3/+2If you want somebody to list all of the historical figures (esp. prominent scientists) who were atheist, it's only too easy. On either side of the game, that's a silly debate to get into.
- xGeneric, on 10/29/2007, -4/+12Yeah, using the word "Phase" seems a bit odd to me as well. I wouldn't go as for to say that religious people have their head stuck up their ass. After all, no one really knows exactly what happens once you die(As in, heart is no longer beating, and your brain is dead beyond any possible recovery). I think the rise in Atheism in America, and the world in general, is the result of science proving religious "facts" to be outright lies born from ignorance, stubbornness and lack of knowledge.
Why is there a moon? God made it. Why is there light? God said so. Why do we have 5 fingers, 5 toes, and walk up right? God wanted it. These all seemed like great answers hundreds/thousands of years ago, especially if it's what you've been taught since birth... and especially when you're told you'll suffer until the end of time unless you believe these things. We live in a different time now, where many of these things can be explained(at least partially) by our new technology and understanding. Unlike previous centuries, we are now faced with believing in something as grand as God based on no real physical evidence, but by the concept of faith... or believing in something that has been discovered, researched, scrutinized, and tested over and over again. One is set of answers requires logic, another set requires faith.
When posing questions, Science will say "Here, I'll show you what I mean", Religion will say "Believe me because I said so, and it's in this book, so it must be true. Not to mention the suffering you'll endure after death if you don't believe me." I don't like threats, and religion will threaten you. Another major problem I have with religion is the fact that what God you believe in is mostly the product of what part of the world you come from. I know some of you are going to hate me for saying this... but it's a lot like believing in Santa Clause. You'd still believe in Santa if you were raised to believe in him, and no one told you otherwise... that is assuming you didn't catch your parents planting presents under the tree. The fact that the ultimate being of love would codemn half the world to hell simply because they were born in the wrong region screams of hypocrisy.
No all powerul, all knowing being would try to pass that kind of crap off as fact. The bible has the stench of man all over it. It's an imperfect book, written by imperfect beings, designed to control people.
Flying Spaghetti Monster.- Waterrat, on 10/23/2007, -0/+8
"The fact that the ultimate being of love would condemn half the world to hell simply because they were born in the wrong region screams of hypocrisy."
More than half really..My sister,who died 3 days after we were born,never got to be "saved",so I guess she is in hell now...makes a lot of sense,doesn't it.
Actually,according to the Church Of Christ..Everybody on the PLANET ,past,present and future is going to hell because they do not or did not belong to the Church of Christ very special and only "real" Christian religion.
So guess we are all screwed.(And yes,my COC kin really believe this poppycock.)
It's that sort of BS that really causes me to hate religions . - ophello, on 10/29/2007, -3/+2"Why is there a moon? God made it. Why is there light? God said so. Why do we have 5 fingers, 5 toes, and walk up right?"
None of these questions have final answers. Science has yet to idendify First Cause. You can ask Why to the end of time, and science will still give a causal relationship. Science cannot solve itself from within -- it will inevitably find blocks.
Just imagine you are dreaming, and in your dream, you perform an experiment on something. What has that experiment proven?- Alexandru25, on 10/24/2007, -1/+11) It's well understood that at the early stages of Earth's life, a comet/meteor slammed into earth and broke off a large chunk. That chunk got pulled into earths gravitational field and picked up a constant stead orbit. There you have the moon! Without it, tides would not exist, and religious quacks in the past could not magically predict eclipses to gain power.
2) The light question is stupid.
3) 5 fingers, 5 toes, and walking upright, are quite extensively explained by evolution.
I suggest you take a community college class, maybe you will learn something and not post stupid ***** like this. - YourDoom123, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1ehh, be careful with a statement like a question is stupid... light is an integral part of matter (being the carrier of the electroweak force), so you can answer why there is light once you understand why there is matter.
- Endemoniada, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Science has never, and will never, claim it is The Final Answer. Doing that would defy the very essence of science, which is to question everything. Always.
- Alexandru25, on 10/24/2007, -1/+11) It's well understood that at the early stages of Earth's life, a comet/meteor slammed into earth and broke off a large chunk. That chunk got pulled into earths gravitational field and picked up a constant stead orbit. There you have the moon! Without it, tides would not exist, and religious quacks in the past could not magically predict eclipses to gain power.
- Waterrat, on 10/23/2007, -0/+8
- MrSlumberjack, on 10/29/2007, -5/+2I completely agree with your head-up-ass analogy.
- MrSlumberjack, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1I swear, I didn't do it.
- MrSlumberjack, on 10/29/2007, -4/+6I completely agree with your head-up-asses analogy. Being born into a non-religious family gave me a great onlooker's point of view of what the world is really like without an imaginary sky man spying on your life. I'm disgusted with the cocky, self-superior and ethnocentric point of views that the majority Christians have about their religion.
And I'm ***** sick of the out-of-tune church bells ringing through my apartment window, which make no distinguishable tune for an extended period of time while I'm trying to study! Wait till I start my own religion and blast foghorns from the roof of my apartment every night at 2am before I go to sleep. - snapcase, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2I prefer to think of it as an.... enlightenment, rather than a "phase".
- eclipse007, on 10/27/2007, -35/+77So those people who are religious have "their heads stuck up their asses" ?
- lOvOl, on 10/23/2007, -123/+33Many people don't realize that America has had its ups and downs with regards to religiousity, rather than the popular mythical perception that the consistent slope downward from a point in our nation's history where 99.99999999999% of everyone was religious.
The fact is the United States has gone through phases of religious expression, some of which have gone extinct, and some of which have mutated and survived. In fact, the hardcore atheism I see nowadays is religious in its fervor and is nothing new in that it is just the religion of materialism they are espousing (of which a strict obedience to scientific principles is considered their dogma).
Materialism in world history has come and gone and come back again in different areas of the world and in different periods of time. The reason materialism has not overtaken the entire world is because it is popular in times of plenty, yet it is always synonymous with the decline of a culture, nation or empire over time. Once materialism becomes too weak in a culture, nation, or empire, then spiritual fundamentalism usually takes over. Kind of like how Plato predicted that the collapse of democracy would always turn into tyranny as the next logical course in government.
So I would agree that "atheism" or more specifically "materialism" is just a phase in this country, just as religious fundamentalism has had its phases as well.- Rodman930, on 10/23/2007, -9/+3499.99999999999%? Impossible!
(I don't take kindly to hyperbole) - aaronwolfe, on 10/24/2007, -12/+80Atheism is materialism? Just because two things are happening at the same time doesn't mean that one is a result of the other.
I think saying that America is beginning an atheist "phase" is just lazy. People aren't as religious in the traditional sense, but that is not the same as being atheist. And to say that the decline in religion is related to the increase in materialism is unfounded. I think the decline in religion is due to increased education, and the increase in materialism is due to the prosperity this country has had over the last century.
If you're trying to say that our materialism and the decline of our civilization is due to the decline in our organized religion, just come out and say it. And if you are, you are wrong.- amorrise, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5Atheism is materialism? Just because two things are happening at the same time doesn't mean that one is a result of the other.
See there is real logic in some of these arguments - Cayfox, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Scientific truth depends on empirical verification. The material world, and the relationships we observe within it, are the only things we can build a system of rational belief upon. Metaphysics, religion and the supernatural cannot be proven scientifically, giving us little reason to believe in them.
That pretty much makes atheists materialists.- veter, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1"Pretty much" isn't exactly logic.
- Cayfox, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Perhaps you could tell me where the flaw in this logic lies, rather than dwelling on a figure of speech?
- veter, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1"Pretty much" isn't exactly logic.
- amorrise, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5Atheism is materialism? Just because two things are happening at the same time doesn't mean that one is a result of the other.
- commernie, on 10/23/2007, -3/+20I don't think you know what materialism means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
- JoeVet, on 10/23/2007, -2/+15You throw your strawman out there as if call atheism 'materialism' benefits your argument. You talk about how logical you are but use a classic logical flaw to promote your side. Or are you trying to be as humorous as you are?
- GuyeNoir, on 10/23/2007, -1/+24"...a strict obedience to scientific principles is considered their dogma" - lOvOl
"Science...doesn't ask for your faith. It just asks for your eyes" - xkcd
Science is not a belief system. It's a quantitative measurement of observable phenomena, not making up fanciful explanations for phenomena we don't understand to make people feel better. Scientists don't "believe" anything until they see it in action.- cababika799, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2Don't make such a gross over estimation. There are plenty of scientists that believe things they haven't proven yet (or were never able to prove).
With the insurmountable powers of logic and science behind you, there are still as many whacko's in your camp as you think there are in others. Try being humble for a change.- Matri, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Science dares you to prove it wrong. Religion condemns you for doing so.
- Turambar, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2seriously, the people who 'believe' things that they can't prove aren't just sitting on their asses reading a book. if they believe something that odd, they're out there trying to prove it!
- cababika799, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2Don't make such a gross over estimation. There are plenty of scientists that believe things they haven't proven yet (or were never able to prove).
- br0ck, on 10/23/2007, -3/+13Yeah, those atheists sure show their materialistic tendencies during Christmas season every year, don't they..
- Matri, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Together with the Jews, Christians, Muslims....
- GuyeNoir, on 10/24/2007, -2/+10And to add to my previous comment: If someone told me that chocolate cured cancer, or cigarettes are actually good for you, or someone made a plane fueled by magic pixie dust; I'd call ***** and demand to see physical evidence, and continue to believe those claims were ***** until such evidence was presented to me. Why should the concept of an invisible man who lives in the sky be an exception?
- chuckbo, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5I applaud you, for you seem to be an extreme rarity, and I wish more people thought as critically as you do. So I take it that, for example, regarding evolution, you've read books and papers on the issue, from both sides, and can ably discuss the strengths of the theory as well as the places where evidence isn't as solid?
Too many people accept horribly flawed "studies" with either poor controls, or too small a sample size to be valid, or built-in bias and consider that as proof for a sketchy theory, just because someone with government funding (who calls himself a scientist even though he doesn't follow the scientific method and may never bother to publish any results contrary to his preset theories) or a blogger says that's what it means. - cababika799, on 10/24/2007, -4/+4Congrats Chuckbo. You're the type of argument everyone needs to hear.
Everything negative that atheism believes about religion stems from the fact that they all believe that religion has played telephone over the years and none of the origional texts are anywhere close to what they were when they were written. However, when it comes to their own "studies" 99% of all atheists have never seen the evidence for themselves or even heard of the words come from the mouth of the man that discovered them. They just go on hear-say from their severely biased, bible-hating professor that is spawning tools of his own.
One of the main reasons why atheists hate religion is because they feel like it makes pawns out of anyone who believes. At least I have the same book the preacher is reading from so I can see for myself. Where as you don't have a particle accelorator in your backyard, neither can you just jump on Hubble for a couple hours...and none of you have even seen an accurate fossil record. The truth is that for every scientist that comes out with a theory, there are always scientists who are just as equally qualified who say differently. So in that respect, you're just as big a pawns as anyone else.- gnick, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2"Everything negative that atheism believes about religion stems from the fact that they all believe that religion has played telephone over the years and none of the original texts are anywhere close to what they were when they were written."
Sorry. Even if I take it on faith that your texts are completely verbatim with the original and even if some guys present themselves as reincarnations of the old-school prophets and tell me wonderful fairy tales, I'll be no more convinced.
- gnick, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2"Everything negative that atheism believes about religion stems from the fact that they all believe that religion has played telephone over the years and none of the original texts are anywhere close to what they were when they were written."
- chuckbo, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5I applaud you, for you seem to be an extreme rarity, and I wish more people thought as critically as you do. So I take it that, for example, regarding evolution, you've read books and papers on the issue, from both sides, and can ably discuss the strengths of the theory as well as the places where evidence isn't as solid?
- TantrooM, on 10/22/2007, -4/+5And saying "In God we trust" Is not materialistic? It's practically saying the more money you have the more trust you have. It's a sick and disgusting pun that all Christians should be up in arms over.
- Naomarik, on 10/24/2007, -11/+6Materialism states matter is the only thing that exists, in other words, nothing exists outside of matter. If you're atheist and deny being a materialist then you suggest that something exists outside of what we can observe. Since science provides explanations for "observable phenomena" then believing in something that exists outside of what we can observe means you agree that something exists outside of matter. So yes, if you're atheist you're a materialist. Otherwise you're a confused atheist that believes that something exists outside of science but have no idea what it is other than your own conjecture.
What's the basis of your belief? Evolution? What do you know about evolution other than the fundamental, "Life evolved from simple organisms millions of years ago through gradual mutations."? Have you researched the history of evolution, seen the fossil evidence of all the hundreds of millions of species that had to exist in between humans and apes, fishes and reptiles, flying animals and non flying? Have you even thought about what might happen if any organism that thrives in aquatic environments if it were to simply come out of it for more than a few minutes? What do you know about genetics and mutations within DNA? Ask yourself this question, what do you really know about the basis of your belief and what keeps you from researching it fully without bias? Do you believe in it because everyone you know and respect calls it "science" and an "established observable fact?"
A few months ago I called myself agnostic, but felt atheist at heart for the past 5 years of my life. I thought the belief in a creator was a fairy tale and agreed with every atheistic comment/news article on digg. Richard Dawkins was like my hero and I admired his efforts to try to abolish religion.
Then I asked myself the above questions and after doing some research I realized I believed in something that I hardly knew anything about. If anyone is interested in seeking knowledge about something, you have to read articles of both biases to find out the strengths and weaknesses of what you're looking for. If you keep reading articles biased in favor of what it's talking about you'll only know what its strengths are and won't have a clue as to what it's weak in. Also how would you know it's not lying if you don't read anything contradicting it?
If anyone is interested enough to do some research on the weaknesses of evolution, I recommend "Darwinism Refuted" by Harun Yahya. You can find it for free with a simple search. This book is not some philosophy or conjecture in the mind of a theist. Rather it's a well cited and referenced book that tells you many things you should know about evolution. I guarantee some of you might be shocked.- amorrise, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3Interesting point of view, and a good lesson to all, know what you believe and do you homework. I have read articles for evolution and for creationism, and I believe in evolution, but I will read Darwin Refuted. What are your views on evolution?
- Naomarik, on 10/24/2007, -4/+3When I was a agnostic I too used to read articles of creationism and laugh at how silly these people were trying to prove a point using their holy books and no other tangible evidence. When I was reading Darwinism Refuted I had the same expectation that I was just reading to laugh at how silly this author was trying to prove something that can't be proven. The sole reason I read it was just to reinforce my belief in evolution by being able to ridicule this author's logic, but I ended up changing my views in the end. I'm serious, I didn't even read it with an open mind but if someone shows me enough facts that fully discredit what something claims to be, I am not a person to stick my prior view out of irrationalness or foolishness.
I can give you an example many people should be able to relate with. Regarding the superiority of CPUs AMD vs Intel. Whenever I built computers I did research to find out what CPU would provide the most performance and best price and bought whatever was best at the time I was building the computer. I have friends that are die-hard AMD fans and would never touch anything but AMD. This is pretty foolish to me because you're taking your bias of something instead of researching established facts and missing out that something can be better than the other.
I would rather withhold my views on evolution and let you read the book for yourself because the book can explain things much better than I can. I think most the digg community are atheists so if I said anything against evolution I would get buried without hesitation and when sharing views without citing references, you should only assume that it's an opinion and not a fact. Instead I urge you to do the research yourself and you can decide whether or not evolution is fit to fall within the framework called science.
- Naomarik, on 10/24/2007, -4/+3When I was a agnostic I too used to read articles of creationism and laugh at how silly these people were trying to prove a point using their holy books and no other tangible evidence. When I was reading Darwinism Refuted I had the same expectation that I was just reading to laugh at how silly this author was trying to prove something that can't be proven. The sole reason I read it was just to reinforce my belief in evolution by being able to ridicule this author's logic, but I ended up changing my views in the end. I'm serious, I didn't even read it with an open mind but if someone shows me enough facts that fully discredit what something claims to be, I am not a person to stick my prior view out of irrationalness or foolishness.
- Jedwards32, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3Well said, dugg up.
- krd1979, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2I don't understand why you're being dugg down. You have one of the most thought out and logical post in this discussion and I'm all for anyone encouraging an increase in knowledge and questioning what's been told.
- aaronwolfe, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Why does anything that exists outside of matter have to be a deity?
Anyway, I don't think the original comment was referencing materialism in the philosophical sense.
I think he's being dugg down because he suggested evolution is "lying".
- amorrise, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3Interesting point of view, and a good lesson to all, know what you believe and do you homework. I have read articles for evolution and for creationism, and I believe in evolution, but I will read Darwin Refuted. What are your views on evolution?
- BestJaxx, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1"Religion-the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power."
"Atheism-the theory or belief that no god exists."
How is athiesm religious?
To me it sounds like the anti-religion.
- Rodman930, on 10/23/2007, -9/+3499.99999999999%? Impossible!
- pintomp3, on 10/23/2007, -24/+68yeah, right. look at our current president and the amount of time people spend debating and trying to stop abortion, gay marriage, and the teaching of evolution.
- foxhaze, on 10/23/2007, -5/+14Congratulations. You just inadvertently proved this article's point. Going to hell will be no small consolation.
- eclipse007, on 10/23/2007, -6/+22That's exactly it, it's the best thing: People not just believing, but DEBATING, QUESTIONING and THINKING and using their BRAINS. In digg words it's simply AMAZING!
- dcherryholmes, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7*and* an iphone killer
- pintomp3, on 10/24/2007, -3/+19debating evolution or the age of the earth is like debating if the earth is round of if the holocaust happened. debating whether or not gays should be allowed to marry is like debating whether or not to end jim crow.
- Waterrat, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2pintomp3 hits the nail on the head..So very true.
- GuyeNoir, on 10/27/2007, -2/+11The fact that people are debating it, rather than just accepting it, is a significant change from the status quo, and a step in the right direction.
The way I see it, the rise of fundamentalists in the U.S. is a backlash against that change.
Keep in mind, I'm not a sociologist and have no physical data to support these claims. Merely conjecture on my part. - Kopiok, on 10/29/2007, -9/+9Abortion isn't necessarily a religious thing. There are people who believe that the human starts at conception that don't believe in God, and even athiests think taking a human life is a terrible thing.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/23/2007, -3/+11"even atheists"?
come on. Every sane human being thinks that taking a human life is terrible.
"even most christians" think that the crusades, the inquisition, the IRA, etc etc are wrong.
next time, do a body count first, ok? - ubergeek09, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Agreed but not worded well. There are many who are not in any way attached to any religion that believe in fact that the killing of innocent babies is wrong.
- MxM111, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4I think everyone agrees on that. What we disagree is what to call a baby and what to call a cell, or embryo or fetus.
- TypeEE, on 10/23/2007, -5/+6yeah, according to Ron Paul, the guideline of murder vs abortion is hard to define. Is killing the baby one minute before birth an abortion? How do you draw that line? Ron Paul never back his standpoint with religious viewpoint even though he is a Christian.
- Waterrat, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1 You draw the line at when the baby can survive without being attached to mum.
- ElwoodHerring, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Ah but if you've killed the baby how do you know if it would have surived?
- StarlessKnight, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1@Elwoodherring: If it hasn't fully developed a nervous system yet, you can be pretty sure it wont survive outside of the womb, just as an example.
- AceLy, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Some search for the line to draw on it when the baby's nervous system is developed enough for it to be conscious.
- Waterrat, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1 You draw the line at when the baby can survive without being attached to mum.
- Fryth, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1You can be against abortion and be an atheist, sure. Absolutely. But it's not completely unfair to associate the movement with the right-wing, because that's where anti-abortion groups get most (all?) of their money. The term "Religious Right" is often used.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/23/2007, -3/+11"even atheists"?
- Kopiok, on 10/22/2007, -9/+1Abortion isn't necessarily a religious thing. There are people who believe that the human starts at conception that don't believe in God, and even athiests think taking a human life is a terrible thing.
- pigfister, on 10/27/2007, -9/+4Religion is all fake and is just there to control the population: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=55474814 ...
- j1337, on 10/23/2007, -34/+11Wishful thinking.
- johnny222, on 10/23/2007, -23/+9It's pretty easy to figure this out just by reading daily headlines.
- Error601, on 10/22/2007, -5/+20You're kidding right?
- kelly, on 10/22/2007, -5/+18No, the sad thing is that he really believes digg is a barometer that gauges the general opinions of the general populace.
- noahhoward, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1No he doesn't the BBC is not Digg.
- kelly, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I suppose you think that the BBC is a barometer that gauges the general opinions of the general populace
- noahhoward, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1No he doesn't the BBC is not Digg.
- kelly, on 10/22/2007, -5/+18No, the sad thing is that he really believes digg is a barometer that gauges the general opinions of the general populace.
- Error601, on 10/22/2007, -5/+20You're kidding right?
- aaronwolfe, on 10/27/2007, -42/+360I think the inevitable outcome of education, civilization and social evolution is the death of organized religion. Educated people just don't buy into the dogma of the church. They may not be atheist, and they may consider themselves spiritual, but they know that organized religion is a fraud.
- alvinrod, on 10/23/2007, -21/+8I don't really think it's a death to organized religion. There are plenty of people who believe in both evolution and Jesus at the same time and they're likely to pass those values on to their children. You'll probably lose some people from the fire and brimstone crowd, but I think everything in American tends to slowly gravitate towards apathy. You can't keep extreme view points alive for very long because people would rather watch TV. I'd have to say that for the most part Digg's flavor of atheism is fairly militant (or at least it's the most vocal), but eventually that will die off as well. The religous peoeple will stop caring about gay marriage and people who don't believe in their god and the atheists will stop feeling so oppressed and stop caring if someone else wants to believe in some funny man in the sky. You'll get some revivals of old opinions and such, but that's only natural.
I hope we do gravitate towards a position where people just stop bitching about other people's beliefs on anything and leave each other alone for the most part.- Otto, on 10/23/2007, -5/+20>>>"There are plenty of people who believe in both evolution and Jesus at the same time and they're likely to pass those values on to their children."
Which only goes to show that beliefs don't have to be consistent, as these two notions are incompatible. People really are capable of amazing levels of nonsense.- noahhoward, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4Exactly. You cannot 'believe' two things that directly contradict each other, you either believe the Christian teachings or you believe they are wrong or at least misguided.
- yojiffyskippy, on 10/22/2007, -4/+4Jesus? I think you confused Jesus with God because Jesus wasn't the creator and had nothing to do with evolution or Evolution.
- MacEnvy, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3I was taught that Jesus and God are the same thing. The Holy Spirit is wrapped up in there too. That was kind of the point of the whole "Holy Trinity" thing.
Or, we could reply in the other direction. You're right - Jesus wasn't the creator, because there was no creator. Evolution does not require one, be it Jesus or God or a cosmic pasta dinner. - stevetheninja, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2How does evolution completely rule out the possibility of a creator?
- MacEnvy, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3I was taught that Jesus and God are the same thing. The Holy Spirit is wrapped up in there too. That was kind of the point of the whole "Holy Trinity" thing.
- bytor4232, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Yes he was, he is part of the Triune God. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm
- xdre, on 10/23/2007, -3/+4^^^ And even then, there is nothing incompatible about evolution and God. (Hint: evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life)
- ICSU, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1you mean .. and the god of the gaps we worship so we don't look like morons to ourselves.
- hmunkey, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2"There are plenty of people who believe in both evolution and Jesus at the same time and they're likely to pass those values on to their children."
Those people don't really believe in Jesus, they are conning themselves into that belief. When I told my sister I was atheist, because science has evidence she thought I was crazy. She said they can coexist. Then she realized that religion is totally made up. - Endemoniada, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1There's a fine line between religion and philosophy. If I believe there might once have lived a person called Jesus, and that his morals and values are something I want to live my life according to, does that make me a christian? Not necessarily, I might just share my life philosophy with another human being from another time. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
I call myself atheist, mostly because I am active in trying to make people think. I don't want people to abandon religion just like that, instead I want them to question life and themselves. I live my life according to reason and logic, and I base my view of the world on modern science. This means my world is always changing. I don't "believe" in anything, not even atheism, as much as I have an interest in what the most updated interpretation of our world might be at this very moment. I always question, and I never assume any answer is ever final. THAT, to me, is atheism.
- Otto, on 10/23/2007, -5/+20>>>"There are plenty of people who believe in both evolution and Jesus at the same time and they're likely to pass those values on to their children."
- CraigJ, on 10/23/2007, -4/+25The alternative is that religion will destroy civilization, which seems more likely to me...
- Sinbios, on 10/23/2007, -16/+0Uh, if you haven't noticed, religion is kinda what kept civilization going for the past 10000 or so years.
- LBobRife, on 10/23/2007, -1/+0if you say so.
- AngelaQ, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Yes, we are heading to a dark age, which always comes between the fall of one civilization and the rise of the next.
- Sinbios, on 10/23/2007, -16/+0Uh, if you haven't noticed, religion is kinda what kept civilization going for the past 10000 or so years.
- rocket777, on 10/24/2007, -6/+32militant atheism? Do you mean that atheists use force, like a crusade? Or a Islamic Holy war?
How about the God of the Old Testament? Did Jesus cancel him out? The line by Richard Dawkins on the God of Abraham, is funny, but oh so true:
[The God of Abraham is] a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
There's enough scripture to prove each and every word of that sentence.- GuyeNoir, on 10/24/2007, -3/+29"[The God of Abraham is] a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
... who loves everyone!- Hananda, on 10/24/2007, -3/+17And he needs money!
- Hananda, on 10/24/2007, -8/+2And he needs money!
- Matri, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4And he hates you for not believing in him and wants to kill you for it because he loves you!
- condeh, on 10/24/2007, -6/+3Anything taken out of context, or with deliberate bias, can hardly be considered "oh so true"
- GuyeNoir, on 10/24/2007, -3/+29"[The God of Abraham is] a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
- krnldmp, on 10/24/2007, -8/+18Religion is fast food for the mind.
- cababika799, on 10/24/2007, -10/+1Wow, you're 8 years old aren't you?!?
- pigfister, on 10/24/2007, -12/+1Religion is all fake and is just there to control the population: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=55474814 ...
- chuckbo, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4Aaronwolfe, you've got the part about a lack of understanding correct. Here's a prime sample -- someone I knew who was a self-proclaimed atheist because she didn't believe in God, the maker of the Universe, as seen by Christians, Jews, and Muslims -- but then there was the time she told us how wolves were spiritual creatures.
- Shantry99, on 11/14/2007, -3/+5I'm very well educated. I’ve read and understood many philosophical debates on this subject, studied the most up to date scientific material too. As a result, I've accepted a religious faith. Throughout my studies, one thing I have found is that many people have hijacked religion and are using it incorrectly. This doesn't mean the current practice of religion is incorrect...the people invoking it are.
Man is a very complex species who can use things for either bad or good. This includes many things, the most freighting is technology. Within the last 100 years Man has had the greatest technological advancements at his fingertips to do some good in the world...I don't see any good coming from these advancements, only the creation of more and more nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, factories that put hazardous material in our waters etc. My point here is that religion isn't the culprit for all the wrong in the world but rather Mans irrationality and intolerance towards others.
Only when people realize this can some real change happen in the world. This calls for all sides of the intolerant-spectrum: pseudo-religious (ones who think they are religious but are just intolerant towards others who don’t believe what they do), pseudo-atheists (ones who think they are supporting the atheist position by being intolerant to people who don't believe what they believe), and pseudo-rationals (ones who believe they are rational but are intolerant to others) to come together and tolerate each other. We all argue in this life a position we will never have an answer for until we are dead. So, why not just tolerate each others differences. It’s not a hard concept to grasp. - MacFloyd, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1Secularization Theory, as you've described it aaronwolfe, has been a cornerstone of political thought since the Enlightenment. Many writers and thinkers the world over have, for centuries, forecasted the inevitable elimination of religion as quality of life, technology, and education advance and reason takes its place. And it just hasn't happened as everyone had anticipated it. Now, there is a fundamental re-evaluation and criticism of Secularization Theory because some of the most advanced countries in terms of quality of life and technology, such as the United States, ares still very religious and as education and technology improve in many places throughout the world, religious belief and activity often dips very little or remains steady. Some countries in the EU and Japan, however, are exceptions. When the turning point that you and countless academics describe happens for the world in general, however, is anyone's guess.
- Alexandru25, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Education is improving in the United States? Now secularization works fine in Europe where they are educated.. but the United States is downright illiterate.
- alvinrod, on 10/23/2007, -21/+8I don't really think it's a death to organized religion. There are plenty of people who believe in both evolution and Jesus at the same time and they're likely to pass those values on to their children. You'll probably lose some people from the fire and brimstone crowd, but I think everything in American tends to slowly gravitate towards apathy. You can't keep extreme view points alive for very long because people would rather watch TV. I'd have to say that for the most part Digg's flavor of atheism is fairly militant (or at least it's the most vocal), but eventually that will die off as well. The religous peoeple will stop caring about gay marriage and people who don't believe in their god and the atheists will stop feeling so oppressed and stop caring if someone else wants to believe in some funny man in the sky. You'll get some revivals of old opinions and such, but that's only natural.
- treelovinhippie, on 11/14/2007, -61/+172FFS, my day was going fine until this article reminded me that OVER 230 million people JUST in the US believe in an imaginary, bearded man in the sky.
That fact alone is something for the future history books in the section of "Biggest stupidification of the human race ever"- chewbacca77, on 10/23/2007, -4/+27Who said he was bearded?
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/23/2007, -6/+56Probably the same people who brought us White Jesus.
- kelly, on 10/24/2007, -8/+5Jews are often regarded as being "white"
The problem is that all too often people lump people of varying nationalities of light skin into a nationality known only as "white." That does a disservice to the individuality of caucasians out there... but also to those who are "minorities".
these "white people" ought to feel just as upset about being called white as "hispanics"... each of very different cultures all being lumped together and being called... "hispanic"
(Even more bizarre is that many "hispanics" regard themselves as "white")
- kelly, on 10/24/2007, -8/+5Jews are often regarded as being "white"
- cmorwhat, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6I happen to believe that God digs his Schick Quatro.
- mbelrose, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3A lot of the imagery in modern Christianity comes from Renaissance paintings. Ironically enough, many of these paintings were inspired by pagan religion.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/23/2007, -6/+56Probably the same people who brought us White Jesus.
- gnick, on 10/23/2007, -1/+17Inaccurate. Not all of my gods are bearded and not all live in the sky. My gods live where they want and how they want. That's the kind of groovy guys/gals/etc that they are.
- kelly, on 10/24/2007, -17/+6Actually, most people believe in the real God... in the sky and bearded... probably not.
- Ramble, on 10/23/2007, -2/+27Is this a beard of spagetti sauce?
- jjb123, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2No Parmesan, grated not shredded.
rAmen.
- jjb123, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2No Parmesan, grated not shredded.
- rocket777, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1Hey, Zeus DID have a beard, didn't he?
And he's invisible, so how do we know he's a he, or that he has a beard? - arjie, on 10/23/2007, -2/+6I prefer goddesses. Way more jokes about divine heavenly bodies and the like.
- DangerMouse9, on 10/23/2007, -3/+3Yeah, he comes every year just after the Winter Solstice (north of the equator) and brings presents to all the good little boys and girls.
- chuckbo, on 10/23/2007, -6/+11Wow, talk about Hate Speech. Treelovinhippie has lots more intolerance than any of the Christians I hang out with!
- hmunkey, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3I tolerate anything that has a basis. Race, moral issues, sexual orientation, nationality. Religion is just total ***** that some guy made up and other people believed.
- RealHyperX, on 10/27/2007, -11/+6Sad lack of faith. Really. Sad.
- ZenMojo, on 10/27/2007, -3/+5230 million people = 77% of the population. What kind of ***** phase is this?
- L4WL3RS34L, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3The same 230 million people will laugh at you if you say you believe in an maginary bearded man known as Santa Clause.
- gmprunner, on 10/24/2007, -5/+3Imaginary, eh? Prove it. Go ahead, I'll wait.
.
.
Yeah, that's what I thought.- Matri, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3Not imaginary, eh? Prove it. Go ahead, I'll wait.
.
.
Yeah, that's what I thought.- BlueLogic, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0Win.
- Matri, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3Not imaginary, eh? Prove it. Go ahead, I'll wait.
- SuperWinner, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1My god is clean shaven, just like Tom Cruise.
- Evilena, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3I am a bit more disturbed by the fact that they all worship an imaginary zombie.
- J4k3, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2The only useless tripe I see is coming right out of your mouth. You may believe what you want to believe. But to call it "stupidification of the human race" really shows how ignorant you are. Troll elsewhere, freak.
- chewbacca77, on 10/23/2007, -4/+27Who said he was bearded?
- tomcat4u, on 10/23/2007, -19/+14Secular ceremonies are gaining popularity. Greg Epstein of the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy performs them: http://www.here-now.org/shows/2007/09/20070920_2.a ...
- noahhoward, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1We had a celtic ceremony read when my wife and I were married. It explained our view of our relation ship a lot better than the standard stuff.
- MacEnvy, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1My wife and I had my college roommate get his UU ordination online, and then perform our ceremony. It was a lot nicer than having a "real" clergy member do it, and we got to have whatever ceremony we wanted. No religion necessary, but the fact that a "minister" performed it kept the rest of the family happy.
- noahhoward, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1We just used the local justice of the peace.
- noahhoward, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1We had a celtic ceremony read when my wife and I were married. It explained our view of our relation ship a lot better than the standard stuff.
- leetleo, on 10/24/2007, -89/+24What I find troubling about this wave of atheism, is that most people don't even care to consider the reasoning behind it. We see the same type of zealous disregard for logic and reason with this fashionable atheism as we do with evangelical religions. It's sucks to admit, but the truth is, most people don't really want to critically think, they just want to pick a side so that they can berate others and feel superior.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/24/2007, -10/+46While I think