What is Digg?9 Comments
- philscotch, on 11/11/2007, -0/+4satanatnmtedu, a couple of misconceptions from your part:
- atheists don't claim that "there is no god". Most of us are pretty sure that the monotheist gods (christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc) aren't, but no person can "disprove" the existence of a deity. No one can "disprove" the existence of anything! Using the metaphor from Richard Dawkins' "Root of All Evil", you one could not "disprove" the existence of a tea cup orbiting Saturn... Nevertheless, the personal gods are too flawed, emotional, made-up, etc, to even be taken seriously by most atheists.
- The point isn't to convert anyone per se or to argue there isn't a god. The point of the whole atheist activism scene is to A) make ourselves heard not only be the people in charge (mostly religious) as a numerous "minority" but by "closeted" atheists so they can connect and speak out and so on; B) fight against discrimination; C) not allow religion to be imposed on everyone else, especially children. And more.
- If our instruments are not sensitive enough to measure godhood, combined with the lack of evidence to it's existence, all the bad things that happen to good people - and all those arguments of the kind you probably already heard - and the abuse perpetrated by religious leaders against all mankind, why believe there is a god? If there is, it doesn't deserve our respect and it sure doesn't deserve our worship.
- Awareness is a feature of our brain and it came from the evolution of such organ. I'm no biologist but I'm sure if you search for "hambydammit" on the http:www.rationalresponders.com forum he'll explain it far better than me.
Anyway, I invite you to go over to the RRS forum and talk to everyone about these things and you'll see there are plenty of argument for the atheist movement (which does not include claiming there is no god, if you got my first point)... We aren't atheists out of spite or nihilism... There is a reason why we don't believe. - mr804, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3D'Souza is a douche.
- theatheistjew, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3Excellent post. Proving once again that D'Souza is grasping at straws with a nonsensical argument.
- 180andback, on 11/11/2007, -0/+2D'Souza - Please indulge us by reading aloud the "Russell's Teapot" chapter in your textbook. When you are done, you will write the definition of "burden of proof" fifty times on the chalkboard. And then you will wear a dunce cap and sit in the corner.
- RRSwebsite, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Great post Kelly! What a turn on. ;-) - Sapient
- ronindog, on 11/19/2007, -0/+0Some people don't seem to understand what "reality" means. If God is real, then he is part of reality. I will consider the faint possibility that there is a god if someone can explain where he came from (was always there doesn't count). Oh, and that won't convince me that he's Christian, Christianity has no more merit than any other religion. It's stories are just as ridiculous.
By the way satanatnmtedu, in the real world the burden of proof lies with the person saying that something is true (see court of law or science). - NYC83, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0thanks...though d'souza isn't the biggest intellectual tower to knock over
- jdcrow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0Is that what the D stands for? I always wondered
- satanatnmtedu, on 11/11/2007, -4/+1Just as it is pointless to argue that there is a God, it is pretty pointless to argue that there isn't a God. This being stated. If there is a God (of Gods), then they would be part of reality and should be measurable. It is possible that our instruments are not sensitive enough to measure Godhood. Heck, we really don't understand human consciousness yet. Where is the transition from organic mechanisms to awareness?
From my standpoint, it is just as disingenous for an atheist to claim there is no God as it is for a deist to claim there is a God. So, really, neither argument is completely effective.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is