digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Holy War! A New Army of Atheists is Taking No Prisoners

thephoenix.com — There ’s no doubt about it: right now, God is on the side of the atheists.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bmfrosty, on 10/11/2007, -24/+87Well written, and interesting. I digg it.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -130/+122I've never understood people who take NOT believing in something so seriously. I haven't quite found what religion I am yet, but my religious philosophy is basically:

      I don't care.

      I'm pretty sure this is called "Lutheran" but I don't care enough to double-check.
    • ThePopaSmurf, on 10/11/2007, -51/+18@ nixonrichard

      Lutheranism is a version a christianity and the reason some people don't believe so seriously is
      because a lot things which happen in the world (some terrible things) are done based on peoples
      beliefs
    • 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.
    • str3ama, on 10/11/2007, -14/+24I've never considered Dan Brown's works to be categorized as atheist literature, to me that's more fitting of Richard Dawkins works.
    • 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.
    • DanielMartin, on 10/11/2007, -22/+239@nixonrichard
      Atheists won't take not believing in something so seriously, if religious people stop meddling with our laws.
    • skywake, on 10/11/2007, -45/+31@nixonrichard
      I think most sane people don't have a problem with other people believing in a God or not
      the thing people have a problem with is people saying "your belief is wrong and mine is not"
      in that respect these heavy Atheists are just as bad (and annoying) as the heavy Christians
      no matter what your belief system is.... if its different then theirs it must be wrong
      being Agnostic I think everyone just needs to calm the ***** down...

      we can't all be right if our opinions differ so why not just agree to disagree?
      surely there are more important issues to argue about.....
    • Monolith3, on 10/11/2007, -48/+35A true atheist wouldn't be as militant as this new breed of Dawkins-following hypocrites are. Im an atheist, but i respect the right of people to believe whatever they want, and im not going to try and force my beliefs upon them (as Dawkins does). Once you do that, you're no better than the people you're preaching against.

      Religion has been with us in one form or another for thousands of years. It's not going away anytime soon. Just because you and I have the fortitude to live a full life without the having heaven hung in front of us like a carrot on a stick doesnt mean everyone else in the world can do the same. People are different, and some people might very well need religion as a way to cope with life. Thats fine. Dont begrudge them their differences. If you do, you start down the path of discriminating against people simply because they dont think the same way as you do - and that is true ignorance.
    • 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.
    • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -63/+19Atheists like this are just a new breed of evangelistic fundamentalists. And yes, those words can apply to those OTHER than Christians.

      Eventually, like most people now feel about Christianity, even if this idea gains momentum, people will turn against them for trying to tell people what to think.

      This battle should stay in the realm of separation of Church and State, which has allies on both sides of the spectrum. Trying to destroy a belief system is only likely to start a REAL war.
    • Astaro, on 10/11/2007, -45/+7@nixonrichard

      There is a difference between not believing in something, and believing something doesn't exist

      people who are agnostic don't believe in god.
      Atheists believe very strongly that there is, and cannot be, a god.
    • FiP0, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20@nixonrichard:
      looks like agnosticism
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
    • 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.
    • 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
    • Panace9, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6@Jabertsohn

      Perhaps you should use quotations when you take points straight from a book:O I don't disagree with the point..but if you aren't going to be original, at least change the wording around.
    • thedreamingtree, on 10/11/2007, -61/+10Read the entire book of Revelation and you will understand why this is happening. Scoffers and mockers will abound in the last days. Also, a good creationist point of view is presented by Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind ministries.
    • 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
    • Jabertsohn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@panace9

      I didn't quote anyone, if you can find me the quotation I'd be impressed that I can subconsciously remember something like that word for word.

      Reading it back, what I wrote doesn't seem to flow very well so I'd be surprised if something as poorly worded as that was published. :P
    • 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.
    • ciotog, on 10/11/2007, -25/+16@Monolith3
      "A true atheist wouldn't be as militant as this new breed of Dawkins-following hypocrites are. Im an atheist, but i respect the right of people to believe whatever they want, and im not going to try and force my beliefs upon them (as Dawkins does). Once you do that, you're no better than the people you're preaching against."

      Welcome to 'Digg on Religion' - doing much the same for atheism as it does for OSS ... i.e. damage its true value by rabidly taking extreme positions.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.”

    • stanleyford, on 10/11/2007, -27/+9@Jabertsohn - "Faith is belief without evidence....That is believing something despite not having any proof."

      When I read things like this I despair. It would be a good thing for atheists and theists to be able to converse reasonably and intelligently, but practically every atheist I've ever run into completely misunderstands the nature of faith and belief. How can the two sides meet if one side not only misunderstands the position of the other, but also uses that misunderstanding as a base upon which to build an attitude of contempt and hatred for the other?

      Jabvertsohn, that is not what faith is. At all. I would post a longer explanation, but it would be pointless because no one will read it after I get dugg down.
    • 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.
    • egrumling, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11"the same people you self righteously avoid in your gated communities and rail against as heathens."

      The modern church has institutionalized helping the poor and downtrodden. The idea is, "hey, I'll throw a buck or two into the collection plate. That money is used to buy food for the pantry, missionaries in other countries, and other outreach*". 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."

      *at least in theory... in reality most of that goes to pay for the upkeep of the building. The real money comes from trust funds and real estate holdings --all of which are tax free
    • warriormonk, on 10/11/2007, -14/+0Not a well-written article. Al Sharpton? Are you kidding me?

      @junkyarddawg: "perhaps the best known examples are stem cell research, transgene animal research, and cloning." Uh, I'd like references on that statement. As far as stem cell research goes, adult stem cell research has resulted in the treatment of 73 different medical conditions (including 26 types of cancer); embryonic stem cell research - ZERO treatments! So from the standpoint of which research should be funded and which shouldn't, it's pretty obvious isn't it. It's also obvious that the only reason embryonic stem cell research is still being debated is b/c it's tied directly to the abortion industry.
    • 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.
    • ryno35, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10If you are an atheist and perhaps you have never heard an articulate and highly intelligent Christian apologist, check out this man's work: http://www.rzim.org/radio/. I guarantee you it is unlike anything you've ever heard.

      I recommend starting with "The Anatomy of Faith & the Quest for Reason".
      http://www.rzim.org/includes/rss/lmptPodcastRSS.php

      Don't be fooled by the evil that men do.
    • chalkboy, on 10/11/2007, -26/+3"Atheists won't take not believing in something so seriously, if religious people stop meddling with our laws."

      Um when most of the country is not atheists that would make them our laws. Our country was founded on religious belief and still most of the country is religious in some way. So you stop meddling with our laws.

    • dreamflows, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@thedreamingtree
      http://digg.com/politics/Atheist_Books_Overtaking_Christian_Titles_in_Best_Sellers_Lists
    • Zippo, on 10/11/2007, -12/+8When I first became atheist, one of my beefs with organized religion was this kind of *****. I'm all for defending your beliefs or disbeliefs, but when atheists start evangelizing, then it's a problem.
    • 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.
    • mcdaddy1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Zippo:
      "When I first became atheist, one of my beefs with organized religion was this kind of *****. I'm all for defending your beliefs or disbeliefs, but when atheists start evangelizing, then it's a problem."

      There is nothing wrong with evangelizing per se. For good ideas to propagate in a speedy fashion one must "spread the good news." There's nothing wrong with this. People do this in science to a much lesser degree by writing papers and giving talks at conference. Going door to door to spread their stuff is fine with me, but Evangelicals cross the line when they impose their ideas by force, i.e. through legislation. That's when it becomes a problem.
    • Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10A lot of religionists talk to God (e.g. prayer). And that's perfectly OK. The problem is when God starts talking back. Then you've got people doing things because a voice in their head told them to do it. And if you don't think that's a problem, consider that a number of those people have access to nuclear weapons.
    • STARTSOMETHING, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Religion or not people hate people so their will always be war on something

      Cartman taught me that when the 2 atheist leagues fought over with view of atheistism was true
    • Pile, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not a bad article, but more of a generalization than any details of the so-called "holy war".

      If you want details check here:
      http://whichreligion.com/
    • nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@solipsistd

      You win a cookie! "Apatheism" is the term for me.

      Also, the "Lutheran" comment I made was a joke, referring to the fact they are often less strict about abortion, alcohol, etc. than other religious sects.
    • signal15, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12@nixonrichard
      >I haven't quite found what religion I am yet

      Why are you looking? Sounds like a waste of time to me.
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@Jabertsohn

      yes because you can have faith that your friend will do the right thing and not be an ass, or a member of your family that has something of high value that is yours but you have faith that they will take care of it.

      Anyway there are different types of faith, and the definition gets soo twisted that yea to be taught that its the highest virtue is frightening. Because this allows the powers that be to take complete advantage of people... Anyway we need another cultural revolution. This right wing ***** is getting on my nerves. It's not even the right wing crap. Its the fact that neo cons high jacked it, and when you hide behind a religion its easy to control people and then become corrupt then tell the people that if they even question then they are unpatriotic.

      Anyway I'm moving to a western European country soon .. Most likely Switzerland..
    • nickwebb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@DanielMartin

      I'm Christian and I'd like to see religion and legislature seperated as well - it just breeds the corruption of both.

      But for right now, I'd settle for the speed limits to be raised to something a little less asinine.
    • NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35"Faith is belief without evidence. "

      Sometimes, it's belief despite evidence.

      -jcr

    • guice, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11@chalkboy -- "Our country was founded on religious belief and still most of the country is religious in some way."

      And there is your fundamental flaw; our country was never founded on religion. As a matter of fact, religion was intentionally kept out in spirit of allowing all religions to practice privately without any one governing religion.

      It has come to light, as well, some of our founding fathers where indeed atheists or agnostic.

      And before you bring up the "In God we trust" I suggest you do a little research. In that you will find out "God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance and our currency within the last 75 years (I think the money part was back in the 60s -- I could be mistaken on dates).
    • Kelgann, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9“If you gave Jerry Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.”
    • warner341, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2monolith3,
      That may be the most honest, true, no holds barred statement I've heard in a long time, its a shame people choose to ignore, but you've managed to get both atheists and theists alike to agree with it. Shame on digg for what j6stik says, that you're blind hate of a religion has made most of you no better than the nut jobs of the religion you bash on
    • orp2000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@skywake

      Well put. I agree very much with you on this point. And, by the way, I am not an agnostic, nor am I an atheist, nor am I pompous enough to call myself a gnostic. At any rate the bombastic approach that these atheists are taking reveals them to be just as flawed as the Christians they rail against (and boy do they hate hearing that). To them I say "physician heal thyself." Unfortunately many religions have lost any and all semblance of spiritual quest in earnest, and so they, in their hypocrisy, become easy targets for angry reactionaries like Dawkins (here come the digg downs, but only because truth hurts).

      Peace
    • Kratisto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Nixonrichard:
      I've never understood people who take NOT believing in something so seriously.

      ====

      It's not just the not believing in: It's the not constantly being oppressed by outdated beliefs because of religion. You know that stem cell bill Bush is planning to veto only because his religion tells him that stem cells have souls, or some such? Yeah, that kind of ***** me over and makes America fall behind technologically. I don't want to move to Europe to get a job, much less Japan, but I'll have to if ***** keeps up the way it is.
    • annoia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Actually only religious people take not believing in something seriously... Outspoken atheists take BELIEVING in something seriously, whereas they don't bother with people who don't believe in something. Do you follow that? Religious people seriously want to convert people who don't believe in something into people who do, where people who don't believe in something want to make people who do believe think for themselves. (That is, the people who want to make people who do or do not believe in something believe or not believe in something, want to make people believe or not believe in something).

      Purposefully obfuscated so no one can disagree. :D
    • sophiaperennis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2"That is believing something despite not having any proof."

      What kind of proof are you looking for? Empirical proof? You want someone to drop down 160 pounds of Jesus on the floor, for your own eyes to see, and than you will believe? The scientific method of proof only applies to physics, and not to metaphysics. Theology is all about metaphysics. It is good to know, that belief is only a small part of most religions.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@Junkyarddawg
      That's a huge generalization. My Lutheran experience was tolerant, forgiving, not zealous in any way. I actually take some offense at your calling all Lutherans very radical.
    • ShadowMerchant, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0@junkyarddawg said: "entire fields have been muzzled because of religion; perhaps the best known examples are stem cell research, transgene animal research, and cloning."

      I hope you can spare some condemnation for the uber-Green Gaia worshipers and animal rights extremists, i.e. the likes of Jeremy Rifkin and the Animal Liberation Front. They have stifled a great deal of important biologic and genetic research in a manner that I cannot distinguish from self-righteous fundamentalist religious frenzy.
    • codmate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@nixonrichard
      You are a 'non-theist'.
    • codmate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@j6stik

      Do you look down on people who believe in Leprechauns?

      There's your answer.

      Atheists find it crazy that many people still believe in such superstitious rubbish, no more believable than other myths and legends. We find it crazier that the believers in question look down on everybody else, advocate freedom-restricting laws, try to sabotage childrens' education and tells us we're going to hell for not agreeing with them.

      Actually - I was being unfair on people who believe in leprechauns. At least they don't try and enforce teaching of the belief in leprechauns in school...
    • bentaisan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I digg it too.
  • syxle, on 10/11/2007, -81/+5"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."


    - Pike's Letter to Mazzini
    • 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.
    • nreynolds, on 10/11/2007, -1/+59@ syxle

      Yes, I have a question about that whole paragraph you posted: What?
    • Shiftyeyedgoat, on 10/11/2007, -14/+7@fasda: This was written in 1871; explain to me how it could possibly constitute a conspiracy theory?

      http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike2.htm
    • Tsen, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9You certainly seem to type quite a bit for somebody with not much to say, syxle.
    • unknownpoltroon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Ummm, hail eris?
    • Jabertsohn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Sounds fun, when is this due to happen exactly?
    • raid517, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@shiftyeyedgoat so they didn't have conspiracy theories back in 1871? First I knew about that...
    • 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.

    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What a load of crap. But it does illustrate something: Even an uneducated, infantile mind has a core drive to believe in some god-like thing. Most Americans are so uneducated that their religious ideas don't rise above the level of fluffy white angels and unicorns. That's the problem with religion. It is one of our primitive drives. It's time to get over it.
    • RockJohny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This guy Pike was a 33rd degree Freemason and that's actually what they believe. The Freemasons (the upper echelons) basically run most government institutions and they outright worship Satan much like the nations did who Israel destroyed back in the day. They use goats and owls as their symbols and are likewise involved in Death Cults like Bush's Skull & Bones. Their agenda is very real and they are very serious about accomplishing it. What they don't realize is that they are playing right into Bible prophecy and in the end will fail miserably. The Bible at 2 Cor 4:4 refers to Satan as the 'god of this system of things' and he really is.......and is in outright control of mankind and exercises control through the upper reaches of secret societies like the Freemasons.
  • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7"the bad-cop/even-*****-cop team of Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity"
    Heh. I tend to see it more as a "uninvolved-cop/bad-cop", myself.
    • 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.

  • Stachzilla, on 10/11/2007, -15/+50Why can't we all just get along?!
    • 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.
    • 1021, on 10/11/2007, -71/+17@Daniel
      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. That's as big an infringement as anything that the other religions want to do because it involves forcing a type of belief on others.

    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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 ?
    • 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.
    • rhoadesb, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Apparently not.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -16/+24@turgor :

      You are worshiping a pedophile..

      Mohammed married and had sex with a 9 year old and that is your idol, you are a sick and twisted man.
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -18/+7"It's just that atheists have started voicing their opinion because more and more religious leaders want to interfere with our lifestyles and laws."

      Which will avail no one. The only thing that would stop those religious leaders would be ANOTHER religious leader to silence them all and remind believers that violence in the name of faith is unjustifiable.

      "We haven't bomb or attack people who don't agree with us"

      Oh, come on. Marxists have killed their fair share of people, and they were atheists. The majority of the religious people are not fanatics, if that were the case we'd be in DOOM - Hell on Earth land by now. Don't pretend you're better, that's one of the very trait atheists claim to hate in religious people.
    • darkstar949, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8@DanielMartin - You have to remember that, to and extent, the United States is a democratic nation. That in turn means that the law makers should be working in accordance of the majority of the population while still protecting the rights minority. While most of the reasons that people have against abortion and embryonic stem-cell research are religious you also have to remember that the majority of the US population practice some from of Christianity to some extent or another.
    • iloveGod08, on 10/11/2007, -11/+8I fail to realize how abortion is not killing. That has nothing to do with the Bible or religion at all; my opinion is the woman made her choice when she had sex, so where's the babies decision?
    • 1021, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4"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."

      This "we" == majority of atheists, there are extremists both in atheists and religious groups that ENFORCE their beliefs, these are ASSHATS.
    • 1021, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5"It's as ancient as Hinduism "

      Wrong, Nastikas, even written in the article you pointed to, came about in 300 BCE, nowhere close to the origin of Hinduism.
    • otakushark, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11"Oh, come on. Marxists have killed their fair share of people, and they were atheists. The majority of the religious people are not fanatics, if that were the case we'd be in DOOM - Hell on Earth land by now. Don't pretend you're better, that's one of the very trait atheists claim to hate in religious people."

      There's nothing about atheism that tells people to go kill those of other faiths, regions or sexual preference. Sadly, the same cannot be said of certain major religions.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Atheism isnt Marxism any more than Christianity is Nazism or Fascism.
      Hitler and Mussolini (like so many other ruthless rulers in history, e.g. the emperor Constantin I) were probably not fervent believers, but they did see christianity as a means to control the population.
      The marxists wanted to get rid of christianity because they saw it as nothing but a means for the rulers to suppress the population.

      Marxists were in no way motivated by their atheism; their atheism is as incidental to their actions and beliefs as Hitlers christian faith is to his. That is the difference between someone like Stalin or Mao and someone like Mohammed, Luther, or Pope Urban II (who launched the first crusade): the latter were motivated to violence by their religious faith, the former were not motivated to violence by their atheism.
    • Reap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"I fail to realize how abortion is not killing. That has nothing to do with the Bible or religion at all; my opinion is the woman made her choice when she had sex, so where's the babies decision?"

      The rationalization is probably that... well, lets see. My dog is more of a person than a fetus. You know what else my dog can do? Survive on it's own for a day or so. Can you find a single fetus which can? Until a baby is ready to be born, they have more in common with a parasite than a human.
    • bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@1021

      The wikipedia article was on atheism in Hinduism, NOT atheism in general. Atheism is not exactly something that you can give an origin to in any case; it's not organized and no one ever established it; it's simply an absence of a belief. Call me crazy, but I imagine people have been choosing not to believe in a god or gods for as long as other people have chosen to believe in a god or gods.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@tugor

      You don't talk to many educated Arabs or Iranians, do you? They fall into the same pattern of atheism as educated people all over the world.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@iloveGod08

      You are a great example of how religion wrecks the ability to have a rational debate about abortion.

      Take the "soul" out of the equation and the so-called "slippery slope" goes away. You don't kill people with a well-developed neocortex. But you can get rid of an undifferentiated blob of cells. Simple enough, except for the True Believers on both sides of the argument.
    • thefaithful, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"You don't kill people with a well-developed neocortex."

      So any human without a certain level of mental capacity/development is totally expendable.
      Good to know.
  • JonStrong, on 10/11/2007, -15/+17We've got a pissed off British biologist, a brilliant social commentator who loves the drink, an inflammatory robotic American rationalist, and the Santa Claus of the godless. I can't help but wonder who's up next.
  • zspitfire04, on 10/11/2007, -23/+4Oh god, who gave this guy a website?
  • silencerider151, on 10/11/2007, -58/+37Atheists hate religious people because they try to force their religion on them.

    And now they are trying to force their anti-religion on others.


    Get your story straight, or GTFO hypocrites.
    • 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.
    • silencerider151, on 10/11/2007, -13/+19It used to be "leave me alone" and I think everything should be like that. But this is about destroying religion, not just laws that come from religious politicians. I understand what you mean and I think it is insane to hold atheists to the moral code of Christianity, but why not just fight the injustice of the laws and understanding that religious arguments must be left out of law-making instead of trying to kill the beliefs of people?
    • theblooms, on 10/11/2007, -20/+10"I think it is insane to hold atheists to the moral code of Christianity"

      You mean the one that says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That moral code? Yeah, we can't have that, now can we. That is just a HORRIBLE thought. How could ANYONE want to live like that?

    • 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".
    • osirisothedead, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26@theblooms

      The Golden Rule far predates Christianity.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
    • theblooms, on 10/11/2007, -18/+11@Tobark

      True Christians don't hate. We have no time for such things. Besides, that would make us just as bad as the other religions (whose members like to slam planes into buildings and blow up pizza parlors and threatening to nuke Israel and America) spending most of their time "hating".

    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6They think we are forcing them because their brains tricks them into thinking our arguments make sense.
    • jasonslay, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8You should really read W. Rowe's take on things. The majority of atheists fall under the category of "Friendly Atheists". This is someone who, although they are atheist, realize that it may still be rational for someone else to believe. And please... calm down.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_L._Rowe
    • wahoorob, on 10/11/2007, -21/+6"Atheism is not elitism. It is closer to modesty...."

      Really? Seriously....really? There's no arrogance to be found among atheists, particularly the current high priests of the movement? You can read the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc...and the posting of atheists on blogs, Digg and reddit...and honestly say that it's closer to modesty????

      And you call people of faith "deluded".

      This is the part where the audience erupts in uncontrollable laughter.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -12/+21@theblooms:

      You mean like the christians who blow up abortion clinics, kill the doctors and nurses and harass those who come to the clinics?
      or like the christians who hates gays so much that they go out and kill them?

      Yeah, great stuff! use the little pea brain you have and realize that religion is nothing but 2000+ year old goat herder and camel driver SciFi.
    • kindrobot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Remove the word hate and I'm sort of with you.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1"I'm looking straight into the eyes of ALL of you."

      You are now blind, then.
    • darkstar949, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@kindrobot - "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."

      Except you can't really take religion out of international policy without having the other nations to agree to keep it out of theirs as well. While I agree that religion should not influence international policy, you must be aware of your nations religions and those of the international community in order to further diplomatic relations.
    • btgoss, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Digg needs something like a "this post cuts through the BS button, because this post does it. The new radical atheist is just as bad as the radical Christian/Jew/Muslim... it's the same level of nutcase zealous behavior, just without the nice stories... and it's those stories that should be the focus of religion in the first place, the universal rules that we all should follow; don't kill, don't steal, don't F each other over, don't be a dick... the basics that all religions agree with...
    • DAVIBE, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5@Tobark
      '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"."

      How do u know what a real atheist is? I mean religions have books do define their actions.
      Their is no books for atheism for how to not-believe because if their were it would become a theism,
      In which atheism contrast from. So the best way to identify an Atheist is anybody who doesnt believe in God or Gods. So anybody who doesnt believe in god belongs to the Atheistic community.
      The only way to be not a real-atheist is to believe in god a little. So if atheist does good or bad he's always an atheist no matter what other atheist say.

      Atheism is ultimately about self proliferation, as it denies the existence of god or gods & any of their imposed rules. Atheism wants to exploit every ability that the human is capable of & wishes also surpass the limits of nature. So in essence Atheist believe that they should be their own God.

      Some will argue that Atheism is about science but those claims are wrong because Atheism (the non-belief of the supernatural) has existed for more than 2000+ . And the Atheistic people who lived back then never cared or heard about science. Atheism just incorporates science because without it has no stance. a metaphorical example is the XBOX has nothing, so it buys Rare for some flavour.
      ( maybe i took the game example too far, my apoligies)
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Compassion is not only the virtue of the religious.
      That must be why some comment can be harsh, we don't want the rest of you(theists) to live your lives in lies. So sometimes it can look like we are trying to force people into atheism, but in the end we really don't care, because there is no consequence when we are dead, (ie:nobody's going to hell or heaven), so we are just trying to make your life better on this earth. We never pretended to save anyone from eternal damnation.
    • mcdaddy1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9"Atheists hate religious people because they try to force their religion on them.
      And now they are trying to force their anti-religion on others.
      Get your story straight, or GTFO hypocrites."

      Last time I checked, Atheist haven't tried to pass laws restricting private practice of religion.
      You can't say the same about the religious nuts (e.g. anti-sodomy laws.)
  • xXShadowstormXx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Wow, I thought the title said "Halo Wars" ... I need to get out more.
  • gforb, on 10/11/2007, -8/+31Sea Otters Attack!

    Kill the wise one!
    • Plinkotic, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Thank you so much, I needed that :D

      "ON OUR TUMMIES!"
  • nemes1s, on 10/11/2007, -9/+14People who believe in god and religion should believe a little less, and people who don't, should get into politics.
    • Waterrat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3 So very true,but it's not going to happen.
      And for those who think all atheists are immoral cause we don't follow your so-called "good book", check this out:
      http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/28/neuroscientists-find-basis-for-morality-in-brain-biology/

      I was also raised as a Methodist...I never believed all that stuff they tried to drum into me over my childhood. I hated Bible "school" and having to go to church each Sunday to hear the preacher yell and scream about hell and damnation. Church,for me,was a waste of a perfect morning.
      When i got old enough to stand up to my mother,I stopped attending Church.
      I agree with what the other atheists have said here,especially the bits about resenting religious people's attempts to regulate the lives of everyone else.
      And i do believe,if they could,Christians would cheerfully kill all homosexuals,bisexuals,transgendered,atheists, women who have had abortions and Dr.'s who gave them to the women, and anyone else who did not toe their religious line.
  • Zackypooh, on 10/11/2007, -11/+8@ silencerider151
    These are the kinds of people that give athiets like me bad face. If we go around trying to convert everyone we're no better than them. These people just make me want to be buddhist!
    • obrysii, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13A surprisingly large number of atheists are like that.

      And Buddhism is, as far as I understand it, the closest religion to "true" Christianity. The church has strayed very far from the teachings of Jesus.
    • evilesttoast, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@obrysii

      I'm a Christian and I understand exactly what you are saying. Just a few days ago, a kid dropped out of our youth group and he told me and my friends that our youth group leaders weren't doing anything to help him. He was taking drugs and cut himself. After he sent out an email describing his situation, we got an email from our youth group leaders saying, "don't worry about it". Yeah, I didn't know him very well but shouldn't we still actually care. Thats the same reason that kept my dad out of the church for a long time.
    • cybermort, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11you are completely misunderstanding what the so called activist atheist are doing. Don't let any one for a second make you believe that they are attacking. They are simply defending. We are in a country that places us as the most untrusted group, the majority believe that we are simply by default unmoral. Others who invoke the name of a jesus christ can do the most heinous acts (launch a pre-emptive war knowingly under false pretenses which results hundreds of thousands of deaths) still have the trust of the populace because they would only trust a good christian.

      these Atheist are fighting to keep this country from falling into a complete theocracy, they aren't trying to convert everyone instead they are trying to teach and organize those of us who do no believe that we need to make our voice loud clear and stand up now proud of what we are before is too late.
    • jammink, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Frankly I think the fanatic atheists are as bad as the fanatic theists. People try to push their religion on others, that's wrong. But certain atheists try to push their non-religion on others, and that's wrong too. No matter what you say about "defending" your position, once you start telling people they're idiots for believing in god, and that god is false, you are taking an arrogant and aggressive standpoint. I'm sure most of the religious people on digg (all 12 of them) don't feel about god the same way that these fanaticists feel about god, but you are calling them idiots for believing in a higher power, just because it can't be proven. I agree religion has little place in politics or science, but the majority of religious people aren't trying to bring them there, and the majority of religious people aren't destroying abortion clinics or beating to death gay people. I'm not trying to support either side, I'm just saying that you should keep an open mind as don't be so arrogant as to think your position is the only plausible one.
    • mcdaddy1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2"Frankly I think the fanatic atheists are as bad as the fanatic theists. People try to push their religion on others, that's wrong. But certain atheists try to push their non-religion on others, and that's wrong too. No matter what you say about "defending" your position, once you start telling people they're idiots for believing in god, and that god is false, you are taking an arrogant and aggressive standpoint. I'm sure most of the religious people on digg (all 12 of them) don't feel about god the same way that these fanaticists feel about god, but you are calling them idiots for believing in a higher power, just because it can't be proven. I agree religion has little place in politics or science, but the majority of religious people aren't trying to bring them there, and the majority of religious people aren't destroying abortion clinics or beating to death gay people. I'm not trying to support either side, I'm just saying that you should keep an open mind as don't be so arrogant as to think your position is the only plausible one."
      Atheist are no where nearly as bad as the theist if you compare the extremes of both sides. Who are the ones pushing for legislation to control our lives. It is not the Atheist.
      Not all beliefs deserve respect. We don't and we shouldn't respect other people's beliefs if they clearly contradict observation. We respect other's right to believe in what they want to believe so long as it doesn't harm others - it doesn't entail respect for those beliefs. If you said you believed that the earth was flat, I'd try to explain to you how wrong you were and leave it at that so long as you don't push these beliefs into others through legislature. If you tried to change the science books, that's when a full attack on your faith is fair game.
  • 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.
    • Mastema, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5"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."

      I'm not sure if you are religious or just trolling (it's a very fine line), but everyone should stop for a moment and think about how this comment applies to religion.
  • phuzzy3d, on 10/11/2007, -14/+22Religion will be the death of the human race. It's really ***** sad!
    • obrysii, on 10/11/2007, -25/+16Because, you know, 8000+ years of religion have really harmed how we live today.

      I think it will be political wars and nuclear bombs that will be the death of the human race.
    • 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?
    • 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.
    • jammink, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4How about we blame the human race for what's happened and will happen to the human race.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@Astaro:

      IMO most "religious wars" were simply political wars that were then sold to the population as a religious issue because it was convenient to do so. Maybe later they became about religion, but fundamentally it's a tribalism issue for which religion was the convenient dividing characteristic.
    • lonlaz, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3I think it is naive for intelligent people to believe that there would less war without religion. Please give as much thought to that assumption that you do debunking Christian beliefs, it's the 'rational' thing to do.
    • timberwolf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Normally I wouldn't bother but I really have to argue this post. The Catholic Church was responsible for many of the advances in science, art, and literature that have led to our modern societies. While it was also responsible for some very bad things, some of which are misunderstood or misreported(Galileo's trial is one good example), according to many historians it has had a positive influence on civilization. If you don't believe me look in a history book or read the article on the Roman Catholic Church in Wikipedia.
  • binky79, on 10/11/2007, -24/+7Atheist elitists are getting to be just as annoying as the religious retards. Everyone just pretending to know what they don't know, because they need to be able to understand what they can't.
  • ralph123, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17This little gem from Hitchens made my day:
    “If you gave Jerry Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.”
  • busket, on 10/11/2007, -32/+6I can't wait until atheism has lost its marketability. Then maybe we can focus on ***** that actually matters, instead of what a few self appointed crusaders think.
    • Llance, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Hoo boy, are -you- in the wrong universe!
    • GreySkiesBlue, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@busket: If you mean you hope atheism loses it's marketability in that, you hope religion is gone from the minds of Man, and we have all embraced atheism, so having a name for it is pointless... then yes I agree. Otherwise I can't see how a word that currently describes "lack of religion and non belief in a Higher Being who watches over us," then I have to suggest you are sticking your head in the sand.

      Regardless of who is right in the argument, I think some people will believe whatever they will believer and you can't change that, and damn if Scientology doesn't prove THAT.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@busket:
      You should read http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
  • Woolmonkey, on 10/11/2007, -12/+11First this reminds me of a South Park episode where atheists where fighting cause their science was different then the other peoples.
    Also how can a true Atheist convert anyone since atheism is not a belief?
    • binky79, on 10/11/2007, -22/+8Atheism is a belief. It is the belief that there is no god, and we are the product of billions of years of evolution. It's a belief because (while it's highly likely) it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    • daybreaker, on 10/11/2007, -25/+5We have a winner. People like Richard Dawkins have turned Atheism into its own fundamentalist religion. Complete with aggressively annoying preachers, and braindead followers who dont think for themselves, and confront anyone who is different calling them inferior, and feel smug for "knowing" they are right.
    • theblooms, on 10/11/2007, -17/+4Christianity is a belief. It is the belief that there is a God, and he sent his Son to die on the Cross for our sins. We are the product of thousands of years of human civilization and the inherent weakness that all humans exhibit. It's a belief because (while it's highly likely) it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    • SonnyW, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11@sonnyW-

      I don't know, the comments on this article seem to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a lot of digg users have an overinflated sense of their importance.
    • binky79, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5@theblooms

      Cute. I made the remark "(while it's highly likely)" because what we DO know and can prove with science points us to a less than divine existence. And by no means do I wish to come across as atheist. I am an agnostic. I believe that we will all find out the moment our eyes close for the last time and not before. And its very frustrating that people cant discuss beliefs realistically. They always have to push their agenda. Nobody (anymore) can step outside their beliefs and look objectively at them. It's all "I am right" and "You are wrong." And its terribly sad for those of us who love to hear ideas and not thoughtless propaganda. So, if you want to push an idea at me, i think thats great. But don't push an idea from me that you read from a book, or heard from a priest, because it's not your idea.
    • theblooms, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2binky wrote: "Nobody (anymore) can step outside their beliefs and look objectively at them. It's all "I am right" and "You are wrong." And its terribly sad for those of us who love to hear ideas and not thoughtless propaganda. So, if you want to push an idea at me, i think thats great. But don't push an idea from me that you read from a book, or heard from a priest, because it's not your idea."

      I am right, and you are wrong. Period. Just like the theory of evolution, huh? According to many biologists, there is NO room for debate there. If you question Darwin, you are an idiot. And as far as books and priests go, you mean like "Origin of Species" and Biology professors that believe it with religious-like fervor? YOU didn't come up with the idea, did you? Yet you believe it, despite the COUNTLESS holes. And if you can't admit that there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution, you are just as blind as you think that Christians are.

      Oh, and just to set the record straight, the vast majority of biologist (a degree that is almost useless outside of academia) adhere to Darwinism, and much less so physicists. The Big Bang coincides EXACTLY with Genesis. First there was nothing, then there was everything.
      http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18132/article_detail.asp

    • Memitim, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Any scientist who speaks in absolutes isn't a scientist. I'm not sure who these die-hard biologists you speak of are but I can assure you that the scientific community as a whole does not accept that evolution, or any other scientific theory (note that word "theory"; look it up if you need to) is the final word on a subject. I myself certainly concede the possibility of there being a creator deity of some sort, just as I would concede that it is possible that the Tooth Fairy is real. I just won't believe in either without sufficient proof, and with billions professing to believe in a god or gods I would have thought that someone would have come up with something, really anything of substance. But no, just the same string of unsubstantiated tripe that has been handed down in one form or another for centuries. Evolution may not be a perfect theory but at least there is vigorous research being conducted into it that has provided real results, which is several magnitudes more than I can say for any religious theory.
    • covertbadger, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5@theblooms

      You are peddling ignorance to support your point. It simply isn't true that the scientific community condemns people that question Darwin or that Origin of Species is believed with "religious-like fervour". The theory put forward by Darwin has been studied in intense detail over the past few couple of centuries and modified as new information has come to light. Current evolutionary theory is massively more advanced than the contents of Darwin's book, and this is preceisely because people have questioned Darwin.

      The scientific community DOES, however, condemn meaningless bollocks like Creationism that dismisses a vast body of intensely detailed and rigorous scientific research in favour of a load of foolish speculation lacking any evidence whatsoever, and calling it science.
    • binky79, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5theblooms wrote: "I am right, and you are wrong. Period."

      Thats just stupid. And if you had even a grain of intelligence you would know that.

      theblooms wrote: "YOU didn't come up with the idea, did you? Yet you believe it, despite the COUNTLESS holes. And if you can't admit that there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution, you are just as blind as you think that Christians are."

      When did i ever say WHAT i believe? When did i ever say that Christians are blind? When did i say the theory of evolution was concrete? Oh yeah, I didn't. You're the worst of them all. You don't even know or care what i believe, you just like telling me I'm wrong.

    • Dustin00, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I believe I am responsible for myself.
      I believe in ethical behavior.
      I choose to be a good person purely because that is what I want to be.

      I do not behave from fear of eternal punishment; I am not a 3 year old.
      I do not beg god for help, forgiveness, or explanations of bad things that happen to me.

      I will continue to learn and explore the world; I refuse to use ancient texts as an excuse to stop thinking, stop questioning, stop growing, stop living.
  • pyrolyte, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Ideas die, so we do not have to.
  • flashback99, on 10/11/2007, -11/+18there is reality, and then there is religion
  • MissinSoCal, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8Richard Dawkins is not an Atheist Please at least read about him before you assume. He is a self-described Agnostic. At the very least read these peoples bio if your going to post.
    • darkstar949, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I hate to say it, but he really comes off as Atheist in his writing and speaking - tell me, without reading his biography, would consider a book title "The God Delusion" to be leaning more towards Atheist or Agnostic beliefs?
    • rnewson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Richard Dawkins certainly is an atheist, he specifically says so in his writings. The confusion here is between the meaning of "atheist" and "agnostic".

      As for Dr Dawkins' position, and my own, there are many reasons to not believe in the specific gods of the current religions of the world. Dawkins finds all of those specific gods extremely improbable. People of faith think that too, and for the same reasons, with the exception of the faith of their parents.

      Agnosticism is fence-sitting. Either a certain religion is true or it is not. Dr Dawkins, as a scientist, feels obliged to examine the evidence for that. The balance of evidence thus far presented appears to make any god extremely improbable, and so he concludes that they do not exist. All scientific conclusions are provisional, they are open to revision as new evidence is presented.


    • MissinSoCal, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1You Tube Richard Dawkins he defiantly comes off as an Atheist because he believes in no God, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. According to Dawkins the inability to clearly define a sentient being or the lack there of render the argument useless at this stage in time. And since he admits that he cannot tell if there is or is not a god he is clearly not an Atheist. Atheists are as delusional as those who believe they can channel an omnipotent being into a book. If you don't know stop saying you do and stop declaring your self right because of your religion. Richard Dawkins only believes that you should make the choice to do anything with logical and reason thus defining the true agnostic attitude. Oh and you have to be a dick
  • LosingTheFight, on 10/11/2007, -8/+18I feel myself torn at times. As a Christian pastor, I feel the need to constantly defend my beliefs, but in the same regards, I don't want to push my beliefs on others for fear of turning people away. We must ALL remember that the "squeaky wheel gets the oil": the loud minority (extremists on both sides) tend to drown out the typically more rational majority. Regardless, I am not sure having a physical war over it is worth it.
    • binky79, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4An actual physical war between the two wouldn't last too long, there are billions of Christians. Besides, Christians have all of experience at warfare (Zing!). Honestly though, the funny part is that i think the Christians would fight hardest and with the most passion, which is pretty funny since the atheists have everything to live for (no afterlife) and the Christians don't (war hero in heaven).
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Christians also all have the better songs.

      "We're marching, we're marching, to a land far from home
      No one can say who'll return
      For Christendom's sake, we'll take our revenge
      On the pagans from out of the east
      We Christians are coming, with swords held on high
      United by faith and the cause
      The Saracen heathen will soon taste our steel
      Our standards will rise 'cross the land"

      Saxon - "Crusader"

      I'm more of an agnostic but I'd go with the Christians. They've got all that cool Goth stuff and armour and swords.

  • Zorn, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18Atheism 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.
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -20/+4Dawkins is a pompous ass. I wonder if some Christian guy beat him up in school. He could learn a lot from Sagan's manners.

      "At any rate, religion is indeed in the last days—its own."

      That's what Marxists thought. Guess what happened.

      I couldn't care less about organized religion. The whole idea flies in the face of a healthy spiritual life and spirituality's worst enemy is not science or progress, but unabashed materialism and an obsession on material status and wealth. The other enemy is rigid dogmatism.

      You think science will be the end of superstition? Think again. People do not care about "science", they care about their cellphones, on which they keep the numbers of their tarot-readers. They don't care about "progress", they care about their brand-new computers, that they use to browse to their horoscope page.

      Give or take any hundred of years, this won't change. Ever.
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Very well said. We don't need to ''convert'', as some like to say, anybody right now, if the laws of evolution are right, religion will disappear by itself.
    • Llance, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Dayum! You talk purtier than a ten dollar whore. Excellent!
    • egrumling, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'd love to agree with you, but it seems to be trending the other way. Jefferson and Washington didn't believe in the bearded God we all know about today. http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

      In the 19th century, prostitution was legal in most of the US, and even accepted as a way for a gal to earn a living (at least out west).

      At the turn of the century a popular baseball player begins preaching and converting thousands of uneducated immigrants and factory workers. This had the effect of exponentially increasing church membership, just in time for WWI. http://www.billysunday.org/timeline.php3

      America enters the war to end all wars in part as a crusade to make the world safe for democracy (and to make some dough), even to the point of using sermons prepared by the war department. This forever bonds religion and government, and has a lot to do with prohibition passing.
      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4044/is_200207/ai_n9140546

      WWII - see above (at the time we didn't know about the concentration camps. The spin on the ghettos was that the Jews and other undesirables started all the problems in Germany, and for the most part it was believed by the press of the day).

      Most people who went through the US public school system have no idea that the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s to keep out the Russian hordes (hey, it must have worked. I don't see any Commies here... Do you?).

      The current war on "terror" (how can you have a war on a technique?) was sold to the American public as a war on people who "hate our freedom (and implies GOD is on our side)." Most of us believed the rhetoric (myself included, at least 'till I scratched the surface). No mention of the puppet governments in place that do a great job of keeping the masses in poverty in the part of the world with the most valuable resource in the world.

      The worst thing about what is happening to the US is our loss of history. It becomes very easy to manipulate the populace if you change the past to suit your own agenda. When no one knows why the Iranian government starts every meeting with "Death to America," it is very easy to call them evil.

      The other problem is that science is starting to explain things that have never been explained before, such as brain chemistry and genetic manipulation. These are controversial issues (even for the educated), and impossible to comprehend for the average (under-educated) American. Much easier to flat out ban such research rather than rattle your faith.
    • LeadOffMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1"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"

      Many men (and of greater resources than you) have thought that and they have all been proven wrong, and always will. Sorry, you cannot destroy the word of God.
  • Grego123, on 10/11/2007, -24/+7atheists are a joke.
    • Llance, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18No no no you got it wrong. Atheists -get- the joke. Unfortunately Theists believe the punchline.
    • rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Christ rising from the dead after 3 days is a joke.

      Wouldn't he have been full of maggots by then?
  • djsputnik, on 10/11/2007, -27/+3Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
    • Dralha, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15^In term of logic, you've constructed a poorly stuffed strawman.



    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Or maybe they believe the only true creator is a human being.
    • Wootery, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10"Atheism positively affirms that there is no God."
      No, that would be strong atheism.

      From Wikipedia's article on atheism :
      "Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist."

      Not believing in god != believing god does not exist.
    • ownon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I think the English language has failed us with the word atheism. Theism is a belief in a personal god so, by rights, a-theism should mean not believing in a personal god. It seems to me that many atheists don't necessarily affirm that there is no god, it's that they think that concept is irrelevant as to how they live their life.
    • annonimality, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Atheism positively affirms that there is no Santa Claus. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You see, to know that a transcendent Santa does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience).
  • 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.
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5According to my religion teacher from many, many years ago, you can't coerce anyone into believing. They either believe or they don't, and in the end it's how you act that matters. Since I don't know any better, I'll go with this.
  • 2shae, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2pfff...To lazy to read it all.

    Anybody got a summary?

    • mickhead, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13Loser 1: God is real. Athiests are scum.
      Loser 2: God doesn't exist. Religious people are scum.

      Rephrase, Repeat.

      etc.
    • Dralha, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Here's the summary: ' the atheists are doing us all a favor. They’re turning up the glare of reality. '

    • binky79, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3another summary

      arguing religion vs. atheism or religion vs. religion is as useless as arguing favorite colors
  • eximious, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Whoa, it was a few days there since the last front page religion article! Huzzahs around!
  • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1How do you call someone who simply doesn't care if there is a God or not, but just in case acts like there is one? I mean, charity and goodwill and all that jazz, and not hating anyone? "God-may-care" or "Opportunistheist"?
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1How can you not care about something once you have heard of it?
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Simple. I don't care about Paris Hilton and I have heard plenty about her.

      This God guy, however, seems to be a cooler fellow. A pity the Church is doing a terrible marketing job.
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6To answer your first question, I usually call them hypocrytes. From what I hear from believer, they KNOW god exists and talks to them. So if god is not talking to you and you say you believe just to fit in the group, I call that a liar. So if you just have an ounce of doubt, you are an atheist, like it or not. Remember, he knows everything, so he knows you doubt him and that is punishable by going to hell.
    • kindrobot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5"How do you call someone who simply doesn't care if there is a God or not, but just in case acts like there is one?"

      I have no idea who to call them, but I know what to call them... cowards.

      So, in a way, I would know HOW to call them for something like dinner..

      "Cooooooooward.. dinner's ready."
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"From what I hear from believer, they KNOW god exists and talks to them."

      Do I look like Amber Tamblyn to you? God talks to Joan. If He/She/Whatever feels the need to call me, He/She/Whatever will page me.
    • darkstar949, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@Pixelante - Hard to say, giving to charity and doing good deeds for others is something that I believe makes some a decent person regardless of their personal beliefs - I would personally call them "A decent person" and leave it a that as there really isn't much of a need to get religious motivations involved.
  • mikedmoon, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4I can't stand atheists. And I am one. I'm the only atheist I like, the rest are so virulently anti-religion it makes my stomach turn.
    • kindrobot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Hopefully you'll love me then. I'm not anti-religion at all. I'm anti-theocracy. Nice to meet you.
      I'm not sure I like you yet though. You seem kind of judgmental.
  • wolfpack52, on 10/11/2007, -22/+3what i dont get is how u can believe there isnt a God..

    how did we get here today..such complex organisms that we are today couldve simply not come from a stupid explosion in space..when u say we came from all this matter tht exploded...ur saying we under the rarest circumstnaces came together and somehow perfectly became what we are..eyeballs, sexual reproductive organs, brain, spinal cord,etc and all works without a flaw..so perfectly we had to have a creator...let me put it to you this way

    if you and i were standing in new york city and i pointed out the empire state building...what would your answer be to the question: prove to me this building had a creator...you would most likely say because its there it proves it has a creator

    so therefore logic says we have a creator because all of us are here walking on earth...from a creator not a explosion

    and evolution disproves itself!! many people dont realize it but the fact that there are no transitional evolutions from one species to another (meaning there are no fossils of species that are half and half of one another)...u simply cannot evolve from one species to another overnight

    if you are atheist please look somewhere on the net about pascals (the famous mathematician) wager...basically he stated that its better to believe in God than not because if there was a God..you would go to heaven..if there wasnt a God..no loss..u just lay in your grave..but if dont believe in God and there is one..u go to hell (which i hear stories from people flat lining and coming back from hell; it sounds like the worst place u can imagine) or you lay in your grave




    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1Blaise Pascal was smarter than anyone alive today. People in his era tended to be like that.
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9-sigh-
      not another intelligent design defender.

      It's not because we don't or can't understand it that it has to come from a higher power or whatever you want to call it.
      Nature is so complex, I doubt we ever have the capabilities to explain everything, that doesn't imply there is a creator.
    • 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.
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1"And you assume that the incorrect choice (atheism) will result in eternal damnation"

      Incorrect. Ever heard of the Good Samaritan? Righteousness has nothing to do with beliefs.

      And by the way I can be Pascal was smarter than me, you and all of the Digg audience combined. His was not exactly a "gamble" because he reckoned that simply believing in God wasn't that much of a sacrifice.
    • TritonX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Of course, faking belief in god was a not so bad thing for your health in those times.
    • 5JimBob, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Yea, Pascal's argument is worth considering, but I'm forced to conclude that the vast preponderance of evidence suggests that God doesn't exist and I prefer to live my life more honestly; that is, I don't want to live my life like a poker game betting on what I consider to be long odds. How about this; I live a decent (mostly) conventional moral existence, the same one most atheists live - along with almost everybody else - and If God exists He'll give me a break when and if the moment comes when I stand before Him. Why should any Supreme Being who can whip up something like the universe, be offended just because someone in good conscience wrongly concludes that he doesn't exist. Hard to believe that an all powerful deity could need the strokes - unless Chef is right.

      On a separate note, my biggest complaint with many fellow atheists is the accusation of hypocrisy on the part of religious believers. There are certainly hypocrites of all varieties, but a popular (and in my opinion a particularly grievous) secular version basically says " I'm a low-life self-centered creep who does crummy things to himself and all those around me but I admit what I am and therefore I'm better than any religious two-faced ***hole" who fails occasionally. One tends to hear this from 19-year old meth addicts, and at one time, from Johnny Paycheck.
    • 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.
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"How about this; I live a decent (mostly) conventional moral existence, the same one most atheists live - along with almost everybody else - and If God exists He'll give me a break when and if the moment comes when I stand before Him."

      Which is exactly what my religion teacher used to state. Don't believe in God, live righteously (don't harm others, lend help whenever you can and all that jazz) and you're OK. But if you DO believe in God and then do NOT live righteously, you're in for a very bad time.
    • whitehornmatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3>if you and i were standing in new york city and i pointed out the empire state building...what would your answer be to the question: prove to me this building had a creator...you would most likely say because its there it proves it has a creator
      There are records of who applied for building permits and the like, you could probably also find out which companies were contracted to build it.
      >so th