What is Digg?452 Comments
- DanielMartin, on 10/11/2007, -22/+240@nixonrichard
Atheists won't take not believing in something so seriously, if religious people stop meddling with our laws. - Jabertsohn, on 10/11/2007, -30/+221Faith is belief without evidence.
That is believing something despite not having any proof. Religious faith is only one type of faith, it can be applied to things such as science, morals, philosophy and many more things.
Children are being taught that faith is a GOOD thing. Not only a good thing but the HIGHEST virtue.
Anyone who cannot see a problem here is clearly insane. - bajesus, on 10/11/2007, -19/+194"I've never understood people who take NOT believing in something so seriously."
People take it so seriously because of the pervasiveness of religion. When you find serious problems in the logic of religion and then look at the outside world and see the vast majority ignoring those logic gaps you tend too feel the world is insane. Add to that the fact that not only the people who believe in the things you find crazy, but the most extreme of those people, set policy in the world around you. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -13/+162Actual Lutherans care A LOT. They're really zealous people. They're also rare. Most of the state religions of northern europe are nominally lutheran protestants, but due to their association with the state they're pretty secular by now, not much fire & brimstone left in them.
@nixonrichard: The reason people like Dawkins care, is because religious fundamentalism is encroaching on science. Just yesterday we had a story of how a university professor was forced to remove a blog debunking "alternative therapy", for instance prayer, and entire fields have been muzzled because of religion; perhaps the best known examples are stem cell research, transgene animal research, and cloning. - SonnyW, on 10/11/2007, -7/+84People who don't believe in god just want you to keep him the ***** out of politics and science.
- DanielMartin, on 10/11/2007, -22/+98Because Christians want to ban stem cell research and abortion, Islamists want every woman to wear a veil, and Hindutvavadis want to establish a Hindu Rashtra.
- DanielMartin, on 10/11/2007, -6/+77@1021:
No, I don't want "take God out of their lives".
I've no problems with Christians going to a church and believing in Jesus. But I do have problem with Christians making laws against abortion and voting for people who would ban stem cell research.
I am fine with people offering prayers in a mosque, but I am not fine with people wanting to kill a cartoonist because he drew a funny portrait of a guy they consider prophet of God.
I don't dislike Hindus singing bhajans in a temple, but I do dislike fanatics who vandalize shops selling valentine cards and harass ladies wearing mini skirts because they believe these are against "Hindu culture".
Atheism not something that was born in 19th or 20th century. It's as ancient as Hinduism (which, as far as I know, is considered as the oldest religion):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism
It's just that atheists have started voicing their opinion because more and more religious leaders want to interfere with our lifestyles and laws. We haven't bomb or attack people who don't agree with us, we just voice our opinions. We won't care if religious people stop being bigots. - Tobark, on 10/11/2007, -12/+81@1021
"And Atheists, if you want to point to the extremist wing of every religion like you have in your post, want everyone to take God out of their lives."
No, we jst want you to stop acting like asshats in the name of "insert_god_here". Who you choose to worship in your own home or in your church is no concern of ours. - bmfrosty, on 10/11/2007, -24/+87Well written, and interesting. I digg it.
- nreynolds, on 10/11/2007, -1/+59@ syxle
Yes, I have a question about that whole paragraph you posted: What? - inhaler, on 10/11/2007, -7/+51@thedreamingtree
You mean that acid trip at the back of the bible? That's one thing that's always worried me about Christians is their motivation to bring forth doomsday. You can't tell me you preach a religion of peace and love and temperance when in reality you're just hoping to kickstart amageddon so that Jesus can transport all the pious into orbit. Isn't that the same arguement you're touting against Islam? A religion based on peace that unfortunately has followers trying to kill themselves and others inorder to get to heaven? I think the real holy war is who is going to obliterate humanity first, fundie muslims or fundie christians.
All in all, I think Jesus would ultimately dissaprove of the current state of christianity. I mean, half the arguements started by fundie christians lately are either about creationsim (genesis old testement stuff) or the rapture (the mad mad works of destruction), both of which I don't recall Christ actually going into any detail about whatsoever. Didn't he hang out with the convicts, prostitutes, and undesirables - the same people you self righteously avoid in your gated communities and rail against as heathens. I'm all for this new wave of secular intolerance of religion: we've tried the quiet approach of understanding, respect and tolerance, and got burned (excuse the pun) for it. Time to fight back. - meshman, on 10/11/2007, -19/+60How is "leave me alone" forcing anything on others? If you want to talk hypocricy, lets' talk about how religious followers influence and create laws to enforce their 'values' on everyone, and then claim atheists are forcing their views on them when they object. If you don't approve of gay marriage then don't marry a person of the same sex. If you don't approve of abortion then don't have one. It's that simple. But no, religious adherents just HAVE to have everyone live by their archaic book and criticize anyone that doesn't follow it. Atheists aren't trying to create laws that take the rights away from religious followers but don't be surpised if they try to wipe out the assinine laws created by religious influence.
- EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -16/+53@thedreamingtree:
Maybe you can explain why your god hates amputees?
There is not a single example of an amputee who has gotten a limb regrown after prayer even though the religious nutcases claim that they can cure anything with prayers, but it seems that amputees can not be fixed.
See http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm
Maybe you can tell me exactly what in the bible it is you believe in? Jesus is a creature that has a lot of traits taken from other similar tales and it's obvious to anyone who does a bit of research, that Jesus was a myth and not real. - Stachzilla, on 10/11/2007, -15/+50Why can't we all just get along?!
- Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -3/+37"Didn't he hang out with the convicts, prostitutes, and undesirables"
Yeah. That's why fundamentalist Christians should find another name for themselves, "hypocrite pharisees" would be good. - NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35"Faith is belief without evidence. "
Sometimes, it's belief despite evidence.
-jcr - rhoadesb, on 10/11/2007, -6/+38"A new army of atheists is taking no prisoners in its battle with God"
Yes, the creator of the multiverse is likely quaking in it's boots about what the dust specks on the tiny blue orb think and say. - fasda, on 10/11/2007, -9/+40You know I didn't believe there could be a more idiotic conspiracy theory then the 911 truthers and the holocaust deniers but that just swept both of them.
- ablez3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31....and the fortress of solitude shall be destroyed in the first hours of the war.
the bunnies shall rally at the Nile delta to make a final stand against
the horde which has ravaged all of eurasia. In the final hours of the great war
the holy pirate armies of the FSM shall swarm the beaches as the sky rains fire.
the pirates shall win a decesive victory and unite the shattered world under one
leader.
o holy
FSM.
blessed be the children of the FSM.
Ramen. - Mastema, on 10/11/2007, -5/+32"Atheists hate religious people because they try to force their religion on them."
This is wrong on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin.
First, Athiests don't HATE religious people. If anything, we look at religious people in the way that you might look at someone muttering angrily to themselves on a street corner. We rightly feel (as was mentioned above) that people who look forward to armaggedon should have as little influence in running the country as can be arranged. And yet here we find ourselves in a situation where the president claims to have a direct hotline (with the help of the very same Ted Haggard mentioned in the article) to this invisible sky creature that religious people keep referring to. How would you feel if you knew that the man with the ability to launch all the nukes in this country was looking forward to the end of the world and fully expected that it would be a glorious beginning for him and those who believe like him?
Second, I have a bone to pick with those of you above (and I'm sure below but I haven't gotten there yet) who claim that it is ok for people to believe whatever they want as long as they keep it to themselves. Don't you understand that this is impossible? What we believe about the world is all we have to go on when planning our course of action. If I believe that there is a car in the lane next to me, then I don't change lanes. If I believe that I have some uncanny ability to correctly guess the weeks lottery numbers then I buy a ticket and most importantly, if I believe that death isn't really the end of anything and that people will be sorted out into bad and good afterwards then I am MUCH more apt to treat human life with contempt and to look forward to this judgement day (assuming that I believe myself to be on the 'good' side of things). The difference between these three beliefs is that one is based on observation and the real world and the others just feel good to believe and so are adopted by many people. Just because a thought is pleasing to you is no evidence that the thought maps well onto reality.
The truth of that matter is that 'athiest' is a ridiculous word to us. There is no word for someone who doesn't believe in the easter bunny, there is no word for a skeptic of astrology. These are the normal condition in which the vast majority of people find themselves and so we don't have special terms for them, But theists are a majority and so we Atheists are stuck with a labeled that to us is as silly sounding as labeling someone an atooth-fairyist.
So no, we don't hate you, but we wonder when you will pull your collective heads from your collective kiesters and realize that vishnu=baal=thor=odin=mars=aries=god=false.
Thank you for your time, I now return you to your religious flame war already in progress. - Szandor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28FTA; Sam Harris:
“Is there the slightest possibility that someone will present evidence indicating the eternal fate of un-baptized children after death? How can an educated person think this anything but a hilarious, terrifying, and unconscionable waste of time? When one considers the fact that this is the very institution that has produced and sheltered an elite army of child-molesters, the whole enterprise begins to exude a truly diabolic aura of misspent human energy.” - osirisothedead, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26@theblooms
The Golden Rule far predates Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule - gforb, on 10/11/2007, -8/+31Sea Otters Attack!
Kill the wise one! - Arkavus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28@thedreamingtree
Answers in Genesis?
Don't make me laugh! That book is the most unintelligent piece of literature I've ever read. Written by a person with no understanding of science and is playing off of your ignorance of science also. Not only is the book wrong on every thing it says, but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Take 15 minutes of your time and look at sites providing evidence to the refutation of Answers in Genesis and then check the facts on it yourself through websites that are not contaminated with religious dogma.
It strikes me as horrifying that there are people out there who still take word for word what people say without checking for facts or evidence that support their claim. - SolipsistD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21@nixonrichard: I think the neologism for the "don't care" position is apatheism - a stance on religion that probably accounts for the silent majority in Europe and America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism - psyon, on 10/11/2007, -5/+26"Didn't he hang out with the convicts, prostitutes, and undesirables"
Hey, Ted Haggard was hanging out with a prostitute. Just shows you what a great Christian he must really be. - Astaro, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24@obrysii can you imagine how much further along the human race would be, both technologically and socially, if we hadn't squandered enormous effort killing each other over who has the real imaginary friend?
that really is what it comes down to.
even if, for the sake of argument, your deity happens to be the real one, how could all the imaginary deities possibly be a threat? why kill people simply because they espouse a belief in an imaginary helper? - kindrobot, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23"You should really read W. Rowe's take on things."
Rowe is an apologist and has confused refusing to be victimized and to have words put in our mouths for us with being un-"friendly". There's nothing friendly about shutting up when the rest of the world can speak freely. It's insulting to atheists and it treats believers like spoiled, overly sheltered children.
Atheists do not hate the religious. Atheists are not "spreading" or "evangelizing" atheism. The huge difference these days, and it is truly a recent phenomenon, is that we are not keeping our mouths shut AS often as before. And no matter how many times you say otherwise, it's still a fact. Just because a few people talk about a call to arms does not mean that we all feel that religion "must go". The real battle is keeping religion out of science, technology, international policy, "vice" laws and public education. If you actually paid attention instead of listening to what others tell you we are, you'd realize this. Either that or the lot of you are simply trolling. I have far too much "faith" in you to believe that's the case.
Otherwise, you can rest assured we will not be sneaking into your tents and chopping off your heads with machetes, forcing you to renounce your gods under fear of death or torture, flying planes into your buildings, castrating your teenage girls, molesting your young boys, teaching your children to behead women who refuse to wear veils, putting you in camps to "protect you", restricting your ability to worship privately or publicly, censoring your speech, forcing you to eat meat, blaming your women for being raped (and executing them for it), aborting your fetuses for scientific experiment, burning you at the stake for practicing folk medicine, leading an army against yours with a flying spaghetti monster flag waving, having the 700 club removed from cable, or otherwise infringing upon the freedoms our founding fathers bestowed upon us from the blood of our ancestors, ever. EVER!
Can you promise us the same? I'm not looking at YOUR religion, I'm looking straight into the eyes of ALL of you.
The only reason why some religions are not forcing their laws and morality upon us is that they reside in places with laws in place to prevent it from happening. You cannot look at me with truth in your hearts and say it isn't so. There are far too many slaughtered Christians, Muslims and others to prove you wrong. Many of them surprisingly recent.
Lastly, this is all becoming such a tired and re-hashed slop of intellectual nonsense. Get it right. We are NOT evangelizing, we are simply NOT being good little quiet, demure, closet atheists anymore. But if you keep calling us as such, many may become what you appear to wish for. Doubtful, but possible. - rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20Stan : "Why would God let Kenny die, Chef? Why? Kenny's my friend. Why can't God take someone else's friend?"
Chef : "Stan, sometimes God takes those closest to us, because it makes him feel better about himself. He is a very vengeful God, Stan. He's all pissed off about something we did thousands of years ago. He just can't get over it, so he doesn't care who he takes. Children, puppies, it don't matter to him, so long as it makes us sad. Do you understand?"
Stan : "But then, why does God give us anything to start with?"
Chef : "Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothin' to cry about. That's like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it's our tears, Stan, that give God his great power." - sonaboy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19i'm sure it would be nice to blame the downturn of the church of jesus on some invisible army of non-believers, but the truth is: christians, as they become more concerned with political control under the leadership of delusional zealots, do more harm to themselves than any other group ever could. the majority of atheists hardly care at all about whether someone chooses to believe in some invisible equalizer - it's when those believers try to coerce others into believing or doing as they do that atheists speak up to say, "Not so fast."
there's nothing that brings the fanaticism out of a zealot quite as much as an atheist. that's why, as a buddhist, i appreciate them so much. - 0ceanic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21related video from ted
Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113 - telexgalt, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22actually atheists aren't trying to force anyone to their beliefs. They are pushing the religious back across the line that was crossed by the zealots.
We just don't want others beliefs encroaching upon our choices and lives. We don't care what others do, just so long as they don't dictate what we can do.
The only way to express this is to put it out there and explain it to people. People like you think we are trying to do what you do, and that is speak and force your point of view on others. - SolipsistD, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20The occaisional bible quotes should have tipped me off, but I'd almost finished reading the article before I realised that the author would seem to be a fairly straight-up christian, rather than an atheist.
- AirRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17@nixonrichard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
The "I don't give a crap" viewpoint sounds more like Ignosticism to me. - FiP0, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20@nixonrichard:
looks like agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism - Astaro, on 10/11/2007, -7/+22@1021 - no, they don't, they want you to stop inflicting your interpretation of god onto everybody else.
- Zorn, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19Atheism is not elitism. It is closer to modesty, but nonetheless committed to a rational, aesthetic, ethical and practical rapport to the world. It is modest, because we realize that we are not at the center of creation: human beings are but one species (albeit a reflexive one). We decide upon available evidence, while retaining the right to skepticism and the continual improvement of the norms and methods of truth and judgment. We do not endorse ludicrous assertions about supernatural beings located outside of time and space who are personally invested in our moral identity, or who, in the name of the special 'creation' of humanity, demand that we 'submit' (can none of you religious types see the problem here?). But atheism is more that skepticism, and more than modesty, as well. It is a rejection of religious self-hatred, the hatred that contends, of all things, that a universe without god is meaningless—the entire universe! As Dawkins nicely puts it—you have the entire universe; what more do you need? Existence has no need of a moral purpose or a theological justification. And we are free to give our own lives meaning, and to take responsibility for that, rather than follow some theological script. At any rate, religion is indeed in the last days—its own. Give or take another few hundred years, contemporary religions will take their place alongside myth—a collection of wonderful narratives (indeed, with insight into ethics and psychology, etc, all of which can be secularized), but without any real relevance to scientific and philosophical truth, and without any place in politics.
- Tobark, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20@silent
True atheists don't hate. We have no time for such things. Besides, that would make us jus as bad as the other religons, spending most of thier time "hating". - MissinSoCal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16bajesus 1
I grew up in a pentecostal church. My mother, a single mom, with-out any help, wanted me to have some kind of a healthy social life. She did not expect me to get indoctrinated in to a cult of hate mongering, war minded, illogical nut cases. Over the years she became more and more part of the group while I began to start questioning simple things like. If there are so many thousand different types of religions how can ours be the right one. And is it just me or has almost every major war in the last three thousand years been because of religion. Now I know these are simplistic attempts to rationalize my growing contempt to the hate speech that was being forced down my throat, but please remember I was 12 at the time.
So to answer your question, as a feel I may have some valuable insight on this one, now as a thirty year old agnostic. It's not that we hate people who believe in what-ever. It's that we hate people who oppress the truth, who try to have us live in a world of irrational hate, constant fear, and who prey on the weak-minded or the socially rejected only to further there own quest for power and money. Please Google Falwell!
I am insignificant I do not have any answers all I can do is look at this universe and try to figure out it's complex systems that and find the beauty in how irrelevant I actually am, we are. No one has the answers, we just Can't stand the people who try to say they do and who use it to there advantage. - ralph123, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18This little gem from Hitchens made my day:
“If you gave Jerry Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.” - J6stik, on 10/11/2007, -7/+19@egrumling: "Much easier than having to look at someone who's hurting, while you are in a $400 suit, listening to a preacher who lives better than many of his parishioners, thinking wicked thoughts about the 20 year old college chick singing about "god's love.""
I've gone to church my whole life, and I've never met anyone who wears a $400 suit at any church--in fact, the only people I know who can afford $400 suits are, in fact, athiests (but that's most likely chance, and unrelated to religious affiliation), and a lot of the people at my church don't rely on giving a little bit of money to charity every week, but instead go on missions programs around our area and farther out. My brother, in two years, has been a part of two separate two-week-long trips to New Orleans with about 20 other people from my church to rebuild homes for people, regardless of whether or not they're Christians. And as for saying that middle-class, American Christians are all thinking wicked thoughts during church constantly, how can you back up a claim like that? The majority of the men I know at my church are married with children, generally happily, and if they have marriage problems they seek help and work it out.
I honestly don't see how the majority of an online community can all have blind contempt for a religion, to the point where they dislike or look down on anyone who believes in that religion, with the reasoning that they disagree with bigotry or rejectiveness. Somebody please go back and read "Monolith3"s post, basically saying "to each his own" and telling how we should all be acceptive of other beliefs, and explain why that gets dugg down, while the posts filled with hate, explaining how every single Christians is a hypocritical, judgmental, selfish adulter are constantly dugg up. - GoneSouth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14We need a brainy hot chick atheist. Sort of a Maria Bartiromo of secularism.
- Wootery, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14"Because, you know, 8000+ years of religion have really harmed how we live today."
Yes. It has.
If you're going to oppose the view that religion is bad for the world, at least provide a legitimate counter-argument.
Edit - Astaro beat me to it. - TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18We just don't want to hear about it because it is ridiculous, do we hear stories about the tooth fairy ?
- SonnyW, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
- swizzcheez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Although agnostic, I tend to refer back to Carl Sagan on this. I won't quote him as I'm sure I can't from memory, but his argument goes something like this:
A belief in God stems from the assumption that something created the universe. If the answer is God, then who or what created that? If that is unimportant or unknowable, then why not save a step and assume that who created our universe is unimportant or unknowable.
Let's take the empire state building example. So we assert there is a creator because the building exists. Fair enough. We are able to discern characteristics of the creator because of the nature of the creation. We are within our rights to ascribe human characteristics to the creator and even assume that the builders, architects, etc. are humans. What we cannot do, however, is claim to understand the nature of the purpose or its implications. Was the building made for altruistic reasons? Was it meant as a symbol for something? What does the creator expect us to do with the building?
These things are understood only due to our cultural context. However, when one starts to contemplate the divine, none of these assumptions make any sense anymore.
Okay, so assume for a moment that some being actually created the universe. This statement alone belies the first unsupported assumption in the singularity of the being. We have no indication of the universe being created by one or many entities. Indeed, this very fact that the cardinality of the creator is in question must, if one is honest, give rise to the question of whether the number is zero. However, again, let's assume that it isn't and that, for the sake of argument, that the cardinality is one.
When we examine the Empire State Building, we are free the ascribe human characteristics because of the context of its construction. When we examine the totality of the universe, what is it's context? What right do we have to ascribe any characteristics, human or otherwise, to its creator or creation? Is it possible that the creator may have a creator too?
In other words: Was the universe created for altruistic reasons? Was it meant as a symbol for something? What does the creator expect us to do with the universe?
The only clue would be the various works of literature, however well written and influential to human development, that attempt to codify, verbally, the word of creator to answer these questions. However, the basis of the validity to the claim of being the word of God is self-referential in all of their cases. Thus, in terms of usefulness to understanding these questions it would be as if I were to claim that "Edward Empire" (kidding on the name) told me that I was the correct espouser of information about his building without any means of verifying that. You would not, nor should you, believe anything I say about it. And if you did anyway, I've got a bridge nearby that's for sale cheap.
What can we ascribe to God if he/she/they exist? Very little in my opinion. We really have no idea about the characteristics of the creation or creator. The former is probed relentlessly with science. The latter can only be probed with personal faith. Faith is belief in something without proof and must never be confused with evidence. We cannot and will likely not have proof of the creator. We cannot and will likely not have any understanding of the intent or purpose of the universe beyond science within the confines of our human understanding. Any understanding beyond that is a gift to you and suspect to everyone else. - Llance, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18No no no you got it wrong. Atheists -get- the joke. Unfortunately Theists believe the punchline.
- psyon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Actually, I DO hate people who try to force their religious views on me. That is not saying that all religious people try to force their views on me, but those who do... Yep, I hate them. Did I mention I'm not an athiest? I am agnostic.
- Zorn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Pascal's wager? So religion is now equivalent to gambling... Yes, that is what Jesus argued, isn't it? And if believe in God, then you have to accept that God would be happy with you basing your faith on a gamble. But then, isn't a gamble, minimally, a risk that engages a rational judgment? So you are not choosing faith, but a structure of reasoning. But faith cannot appeal to reason (without ceasing to be faith).
But it gets worse. You assume that the options in Pascal's wager are equivalent. But which supernatural agent are you wagering on? The monotheistic God, or a Hindu deity? Or Zeus? Odin, perhaps? And you assume that the incorrect choice (atheism) will result in eternal damnation—so it is not a wager at all, but a decision motivated by fear. And a fear defined not by atheists, but by the religious belief you are first of all presupposing in order to arrive at a rational outcome. Pascal's wager fails on counts. It is not a wager, but poor reasoning. It compels nothing. - Dralha, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15^In term of logic, you've constructed a poorly stuffed strawman.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 443 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