What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
555 Comments
- radicaldementia, on 11/02/2007, -17/+203I can already see misinformed fundamentalists claiming "See, you're all spreading atheism just like its a religion". So I'd like to point out something that every true atheist should/does take to heart. Never accept anything to be true without skepticism, evidence, and most importantly understanding. This is how being an atheist differs from being a theist. The very nature of religion tells you to accept things to be true purely on faith. You may consider yourself to be both religious and rational, and I'm sure many religious individuals think a lot about what they believe, but in the end there has to be a part of you that is accepting what you believe without any conclusive or scientific evidence. An atheist refuses to do this.
Most of us try to lead fairly logical and rational lives. Many of the decisions we make in day-to-day life are based on reason. When it comes to learning how things in the universe work, we create hypotheses, then test them with experiments and either accept or reject them, but the important thing is we're always asking questions. So why must questions pertaining to the origin of the universe be any different? Why, when it comes to the most interesting questions that can be asked, must we fabricate a completely unproved hypothesis about a magical god and accept it as truth, and then scorn any attempt to question it? These are the questions atheists want people to ask. I would rather have someone question their faith and reach their own conclusions than simply be told what to think, either religious or secular. I think this is what many prominent atheists such as Dawkins also want, although they are a bit more harsh at times.
So, I conclude, this so-called atheist movement is not some evangelical crusade to convert the masses of the deluded into reason, it is more of a declaration that there are those of us out there in the world who would rather look at the universe in all it's unknown mystery than simply believe what we are told with no backing evidence. I think more than anything, atheists are just trying to illustrate their personal views to the great number of people who have no idea what it really means to be an atheist. The unfortunate truth is that there is much prejudice in the world towards atheists, so we must promote our ideas to educate the misinformed. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -65/+210An Atheism movement is no better than a religious movement. If you want to get rid of religion, do so on an intellectual front, not with large mobs of obnoxious people.
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -8/+152"Though, I am not surprised at all because most digg users are well-educated college-graduates."
Hard to tell from most of the comments most of the time. - digguerre, on 10/12/2007, -28/+165it's spaghetti, not squid. FSM FTW!
- RoboPimp3000, on 10/12/2007, -20/+125Sciencedamnit!
"Atheists 2.0" should really be called the "United Atheists Alliance"! This means war. - TaterSalad77, on 10/12/2007, -20/+119Its interesting to see that most digg users (at least from what I've seen) are left winged atheists
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+95College-graduate and well-educated are not synonymous in my experience. Unless Beer is the topic.
- reed311, on 10/12/2007, -55/+141"Its interesting to see that most digg users (at least from what I've seen) are left winged atheists"
Though, I am not surprised at all because most digg users are well-educated college-graduates. - oriondr, on 10/12/2007, -23/+100Actually, atheism is not a religious movement, it is an areligious movement. That's why it's called Atheism (ie Non-Theism), and not the Church of People Who Don't believe in God.
- willis77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+75If I may quote Sagan,
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. [Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow, Parade Magazine. Also, Billions and Billions p. 215] - Sairgem, on 10/12/2007, -9/+65"Though, I am not surprised at all because most digg users are well-educated college-graduates."
That's a bit hard to believe. - drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.?"
--Seneca the Younger, 5 BC - 65 AD - RoboPimp3000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43WTF? Do we have to append "2.0" onto EVERTHING?
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47well then congratulations, that's not religion. People will kill people because that's what people do.
Everyone needs to see that South Park episode, it's right. - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+48Best comment ever.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -22/+58Blasphemy, how dare you call my holy one a squid.
- barius, on 10/12/2007, -16/+51@oriondr
Atheism does not preclude religion. Atheism is only a word to describe someone who denies the existence of a personal god. Not believing in a god does not mean that you don't believe in a form of organized faith. For example, Scientologists do not believe in a 'god' in the traditional sense* yet they are refered to as a religion (though I think 'cult' is a better term).
I am worried about Atheism getting turned into another religion for sheeple. I think we are in the midst of a 'coming-out' as it were, a time in which Atheists are going to be coming together in strength. Such movements are difficult, and can often lead to misunderstandings and bad choices all around. I am, however, an Atheist myself (Agnostic on a bad day) so I'm very careful about creating false impressions towards my beliefs. I think the reason Digg/Slashdot/Online Communities, are so rife with Atheist posters is simply that we tend to be marginalized in normal life because we all (most) come from families that have been traditionally Theist.
It's easier to be an Atheist when you're anonymous.
* Xenu is a Galactic Emperor, but still an entity within the universe itself and therefore not a 'god' in the Judeo/Christian sense. - cnycompguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Reality is awesome, Great more people are trying it out.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Do we have to append 3000 to everything?
- SmudgeTheFirst, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Finally some paragraphs I'd bother to read.
- zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -14/+44"Actually, atheism is not a religious movement, it is an areligious movement. That's why it's called Atheism (ie Non-Theism), and not the Church of People Who Don't believe in God."
Um No.
your statement assumes that theism==religion, which it absolutely does not. There are theists who are not religious, and religions that are not necessarily theist.
Therefore, Atheism is not, a priori, areligious. It is quite possible to have a religion in which the denial of the existence of a god is a central tenet. All it takes is a place for followers to congregate (digg) and commune (post,digg and bury), a few spiritual leaders (Dawkins, Harris) and some sacred texts ("the God Delusion", etc.). Set oven to 350 for a few hours and presto - groupthink and zealotry! - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -20/+49@BearOwned:
"Christ! If you want to hit the front page, just put atheism in your title. #-o"
Quite telling Jesus what to do. - treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -15/+44Well the great minds of this era recently predicted that religion will lose it's power in 25 years time. I can't wait! ... finally man-kind will be able to excel and not be held back by childish mind-sets.
- altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25There is one thing is this story that I'd like to comment on. Namely that a person presenting a rational arguement and justifying his beliefs was dugg down. Why is this? Why do we keep doing this? It seems to me that digging down people who disagree with me is well the kind of tactic that Christian Fundementalists use. I am an atheist, I've no use for Christianity or it's adherents. However as an "Atheist" I strongly value public discourse, I strongly value peer review, I strongly value having as many paths to the truth as I can find. I value allowing those who disagree with me to have their say and if they are wrong, I believe their own words will do them more damage than my stopping them from speeking. The only people who should be dugg down are people who are personally insulting, factually incorrect ( not of a different opionion), spamming, or advocate violence.
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -23/+48Let's hope this movement makes it out of the internetosphere and into the public. I hate how anything big on the internet is small until it gets a story in the NY Times or Time or the like. I can't wait until paper and broadcasted media dies.
- scheper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29I'd like to quote Thomas Jefferson:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.... What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
If an Atheist movement is to have any merit, they should by no means be anti religious, but only pro atheism. Otherwise they would be no different than what they claim their opposition to be. - DJSdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29I'm the author and I do understand how Digg works. Can you honestly say that the article from 2004 about a man being killed because he was an atheist would become popular on its own, now, without it being submitted to Digg? Many articles that are submitted to Digg are very obscure and interesting, but wouldn't get the same exposure on their own, so yes, the Digg community promoting an article like that is a catalyst that helps boost the article's popularity.
- Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Morale of story: always try and get the first comment in a digg story, you might get featured on a blog!
- Ystig, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35Jesus Schmeezus. As a worshipper of Azathoth, the blind idiot god and amorphous blight of nethermost confusion who writhes, embodied yet disembodied, as the loathsome infinitude of blasphemies at the end of all things, I take offense at these assertions that the elders of the universe are capable of coherent, much less benevolent, cognition.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27@mrfoos:
"This is what I don't get with you self-proclaimed atheists who "very strongly oppose religion": why would you oppose something you aren't apart of?"
Because religious people, particularly Christians, particularly in the US, try to make me a part of their religion.
"Argument #1: "The religious nutts keep shoving it down my throat." News flash! People are shoving ***** down your throat all day long. It's called passion. When someone has passion for something, they promote it. If classical music is your thing, and you practice it regularly, more than likely you've played in front of other people. I would recommend listening for once and see if you can learn anything (even indirectly) for these religion shovers."
Hmm. Can't remember the last time classical music lovers tried to tell my daughter what she could or couldn't do with her womb, or that stem cell research was forbidden because What Would Mozart Do, or that condoms don't prevent AIDS, and, even if they do, contraception is a sin and better to die a horrible death than be safe. Nope, not on the agenda of any symphony orchestra I am aware of.
"Argument #2: "All the worlds woes are do to religion." This goes back to the passion thing. When someone is really passionate about something, they can do crazy things. It's the same for everyone. Religious people have no patent on war. Besides, it's inherent in man to war against his environment. It's what got us to most dominate species on the planet and shut out Cromagma man."
I guess then religion doesn't work too good, does it? If people still do the same crazy things. In which case, why pay the price in divisiveness, learning not to question authority and to believe irrational things because they come from above, opposing scientific progress to better humanity's quality of life, etc. - not to mention providing cover and rationalization for all the crazy things people do to each other. I mean, if religion doesn't even work, then it's clearly not worth the misery it causes. Is it?
"Argument #3: "It doesn't make any sense." Risking your life scaling a mountain in the dead of winter doesn't do it for me but I'm not going to bust up someone else's jollies."
[checking database for mountain climber club that is attempting to overturn Bill of Rights and instill a theocracy based on Old Testament law] sorry, maybe they should be introduced to the classical music radicals...
In short, your arguments don't even hold up as the utter straw men they are. - Foma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22A good response which Dawkins (et al) use in the face of the "why not agnosticism?" question is derived from Russell's teapot ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot ). Here's the gist of it:
There is some non-zero possibility that a china teapot is in elliptical orbit around the sun, somewhere in the asteroid belt, too small and too distant to be seen with telescopes. Must we declare ourselves "agnostic" to this possibility simply because we cannot find any direct evidence against it?
This is why the colloquial understandings of the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are so poorly defined. I prefer the more useful definitions that an agnostic is someone for whom the existence or nonexistence of a personal God are both very plausible notions, and an atheist is someone who treats the possibility of the existence of a personal God in roughly the same category as that of celestial teapots. - Caiman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21You see, it's silly comments like this that give Atheism a bad name.
- Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23FYI: Dawkins made Time magazine's Canadian cover in November. Based on the article, Dawkins is actually agnostic, not entirely atheist. He admits we're ignorant - something which all intellectuals must first admit before venturing down any road to enlightenment. And while he admits an incredibly minute possibility of the existence of an "intelligent designer" or "God", he will not be dictated to by this remote possibility,.. he prefers to pursue logic, reason, science and rational thought to explain the human condition over what Benny Hinn has to peddle on a Sunday morning. I agree with him - and you,. hopefully this perfectly rational train of thought will catch on. After all,.. ifd there really is a god, would he be so vengeful as to condemn to hell a good person for putting aside faith in pursuit of only truth? I think what really worries the organized faiths of the world is that their influence over others lives is waning,.. their ability to indoctrinate children is being questioned in a radically diverse world now more closely connected than ever.
- LowenSoDium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23""Anti -religion" . If a guy killing another guy is religion then yes I am anti-religion."
If eating cake is a religion, then yes I am pro-religion - collective, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I thought the article about the Atheist being killed was sensationialised, but I can see why it became popular on here, because it points to a fear a lot of atheists have, being persecuted and discriminated against. This is especially true in the States where the atheist minorities are so disliked and untrusted. That's probably the heart of why we see these large groups of people forming on the internet, where there's a sense of anonymity. There's no reason not to be 'out' as an atheist here, so people are expressing opinions that they would maybe not otherwise. I think there's a lot more average people that have serious doubts about religion than the mainstream perception indicates.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31It's unfortunate then, because all I see from this atheist movement are those who passionately (or perhaps even zealously) proclaim how great atheism is, how religion is ruining the world, how atheism is correct and those who believe in a god or the like are foolish, deluded and childishly dependent on imaginary ideas. That's not what I understood atheism to be. I understood atheism to be the direct rejection of theism, that is, a belief in a god or gods. There is no reason for any atheist to hoist his lack of belief on others. In fact, this "new atheism" seems directed at trying to tell the religious masses, "Look, there's no harm in letting someone else refuse to believe in a god, so stop trying to convert us. Oh, and you're wrong, and doing terrible things, and you shouldn't believe what you believe because it's wrong and you have a history of violence."
...What? I'm not doing a terrible thing when I give to a charity that happens to be affiliated with my church. I'm Catholic, and while our past is bloody (as is the past of the protestants) our present is not. Our charitable organizations are not proselytizing their benefactors. We provide help, and believe that the love and care we show will speak for itself. The "new atheism" looks remarkably like fundamentalist extremist Christianity. Both sides take an extremist, literal view of their beliefs. Fundamentalist Christians believe that God is everywhere, all the time, that anyone who does not follow their belief system is damned, and that everyone needs to be converted to their ideals for the world to be a better place. The "new atheists" are certain that God does not exist in any form, that anyone who does not realize this is simply not educated enough or not enlightened enough in the way the world works, and that everyone needs to understand their reasoning for the world to be a better place.
Please people, let's not replace one brand of extremism with another. Moderate atheists are content to live without their belief in God, don't see it as their duty to destroy all references to him (and realize that religion as a whole is a huge part of human culture, whether they agree with it or not), are willing to share their reasoning if asked, and don't seek out arguments. They understand that trying to convince someone one way or another is a futile effort, and that the enlightenment, whichever way it goes, has to come willingly. Don't let these "new atheists" dictate where the atheist movement goes. It will end up just as bad.
One way or the other, the culture HAS to remain as total freedom for all. Extremist Christians controlling the legislature will make moralistic law that no one will end up being happy with. The "new atheists" in control of the legislature will make law that bans religion because of its harmful nature. Both prospects will try to "solve" the problem of extremists by outlawing all degrees and end up punishing the devoted moderates. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19be what you want, just stop hating all together!
- Locke2053, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22The real reason atheism is taking off right now is because many more people are atheist than we realize, and on the internet, people can be honest about their beliefs by hiding behind pseudonyms. They can't be honest about it face-to-face because so many religious people (especially Christians and Muslims) are intolerant. I know many atheists who would never mention their beliefs to their parents because they would be exiled from the family.
- Nydas, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24Well said.
- dicknawson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24I liked the article. The one thing I liked was saying that Digg and YouTube are a way of gettign a message out to the public in an effective way. YouTube definitely has this capability, and perhaps Digg does as well.
I'm an atheist myself and very strongly oppose religion, not because of what it stands for or what the people do, so much as I am opposed to misinformation. Regardless if there is a god or not, I just do not agree with the way religion justifies certain actions and I definitely do not agree with the way they feel towards atheists. "Love Thy Neighbor", you crazy hypocrites! - deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@daments
I raise a Stark Fist of objection. I read it and I liked it. I am sometimes very weary of the constant religious push going on around us. To have an intellectual non-violent pushback is a good thing. Not everyone accepts that God (or whomever) exists. I, myself, am on a personal quest for Infinite Slack.
X Day is nigh. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -12/+29"Ironic how athiesm has started to look more like door-knocker religious nit wits who want you to believe what they believe. All the while complaining how others want to shove their beliefs down their throats."
Atheism is not a belief. It is a rational conclusion. - 21chrisp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"Not Atheism. It's Liberal Democrat Syncophant melting pot. Anti-Christian, Anti-George Bush Bigots."
Actually according to most recent polls, even a majority of Christians disagree with George Bush:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1217 - cnycompguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15That's just rude
- Digitalfuneral, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Atheism: Powered by reason.
There is no greater faculty to man than reason.
Having faith on tradition/handed down beliefs is back a**wards. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"Like minded people have always connected on the Internet and in the world. Nothing new here. "
Yep, durnit, I 'member back in 1853, why, them durn script-kiddies kept hacking the steam engine on my series of tubes and the Inner-net done got all clogged up.
Nothing new 'tall. Same ol' same ol'. - kyssk, on 10/12/2007, -16/+29from the article .
"There is no "type" of person who might be an atheist, but if you look at Web 2.0 community sites like Digg and YouTube, you'll see a growing number of users there who display anti-religion or pro-Atheism sentiments."
"Anti -religion" . If a guy killing another guy is religion then yes I am anti-religion. - ncdoyle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13sloop70: Considering that evolution is taught in public schools, I'd say that your statement doesn't make sense. Of course you are an atheist, that's what you've been taught in school for almost the past 20 years. Besides, the existence of God isn't something that you can grasp using science.
Indeed. Growing up I assumed that everybody generally agreed with evolution (much like we agreed with photosynthesis, the speed of light and whatnot) and that the whole biblical story was... dunno, metaphorical or something. (This was at a non-religious public school in Canada when they still had religion class during class time). When I heard that there was actual serious debate about teaching creationism vs. evolution in school (a few years ago, AFTER completing my undergraduate degree) I almost fell out of my chair.
At the same time, I also started hearing about Jewish day schools and the like too. The world never ceases to surprise. - CaseyUCF, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20"Is there a God? Probably."
Probably Not. -
Show 51 - 100 of 573 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is