What is Digg?239 Comments
- cjpro, on 10/12/2007, -9/+159Actually, they will start to form names to differentiate themselves, such as the Allied Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist Alliance, or the Unified Atheist League.
- borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -8/+99And an epic war will be fought between three groups with the same beliefs...ending in the deaths of thousands of people....and otters
- 1wy1dange1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+72A "new" generation of "non-believers." Can we call them "neo-nons"?
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38and if Hindus are right be nice to ants, chances are you're gonna be reincarnated as an ant or microbe.
and if the Greeks were right you'd better get someone to slip you some bribe money for hades when you get across the Styx.
and if the Mayans or aztecs were right you'd better get that human sacrifice ready.
and if the Jehovah's are right your chances of getting into heaven are an average of 0, less if you're not a Jehovah's witness.
and if Pastafarians are right heaven has beer volcanoes and strippers. (though they're not an old enough religion to have fundamentalists or declare their founder a prophet yet)
and if Buhhdism is right you might be a god one day.
get over yourself, some Christians don't even believe in a hell for human souls. Christianity, like the rest, has yet to prove any evidence which makes all people believe it without question. look them all up, find out what you can, then make your decision. conversion through threat didn't work during the inquisition and it's not working now. - anidal, on 10/12/2007, -9/+43we must say our prayers... for the otters...
- cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26inaccurate... Atheist do not split because we are not a united group to begin with, we do not hold one singular dogma. an Atheist who rejects the belief or any god, gods is that simple.
- tazx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35@taoofbill: much Christian charity in the 3rd world is intimately tied to evangelism. You get free food and shelter, but along with it comes preaching and indoctrination. That's a self-interested motivation. Mother Theresa is called a "saint"; yet she would rather that children that the mother could not afford to care for be born and live a brief life of suffering, than people use birth control. The Christian-right in the US was behind the "global gag rule", preventing groups from helping with family planning and slowing the spread of aids, because they might also be willing to provide abortions.
- Alegoo92, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25The real question is: what shoulda atheists call themselves?
I'm in favor of Allied Atheist Allegience, that way it has 3 A's!! - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20saying atheism is a religion is like saying "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
- tazx, on 10/12/2007, -26/+43When religion ceases to have demonstrable negative effects on the world, such as the dumbing-down or elimination of science education, justifying terrorism and oppression, controlling people's lives with irrational morality, contributing to the spread of AIDs by condemning birth control, and justifying the abuse of women, then there will be no need for "atheist militantism".
Until then, religious groups around the world are actively and constantly engaged in activities that adversely affect people, and it is up to us to stand up and say "No more!" - TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21They can solve this conflict once Crank Prank Timephone technology is invented and perfected.
- tazx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21@taoofbill: Furthermore, it's a bit of a false dichotomy. Good people, who want to help others, shouldn't need religion to motivate them to either donate or volunteer. That religious groups do charity isn't a good reason that religious belief should be kept around. In a way that's quite cynical, and recognizes organized religion for what it is: a way to control people, a carrot & stick belief system to encourage/discourage various behaviors.
Yes, we should all try to do our best to help make the world a better place and help other people. That doesn't mean we can't also object to the brainwashing that religion represents and actively work against it. There will hopefully come a time when the majority of people have set religion aside, and see it for the superstition it is; and do good things and act as good people for their own sakes, rather than because religion tells them to. - schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Of course. Atheists are split on pretty much everything except their atheism. Absence of belief in something completely ridiculous is not a particularly selective or unifying characteristic. Atheists as a group are about as homogeneous as, say, people who don't think that David Caruso is the greatest actor ever.
- cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18well we All do agree on One single thing. There are no gods.
- hamandcheese, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17I consider myself an atheist as well, and I just leave it at that. A non-belief in the supernatural specifically God. I don't need to debate against the Religious because I know it's a waste of time. I'd rather voice my attacks at government and media who favour the religious. I'll debate God with someone, as long as they're open minded enough to not dismiss everything I say.
If the world eventually has the number of atheists as the current number of theists, atheism, the word, will go away. Once everyone stops believing in superstition the superstition is no longer. It's for that reason that I don't see atheists taking over the world. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Religion is NOT philosophy. Philosophy relies on reason, and NOT taking things on faith. You can have a perfectly reasonable philosophy, and you don't need religion to get it.
I mean, you can get insulted when someone says religious people are irrational, but thats what irrationality is DEFINED as, "not characterized by logic". As soon as you say that God is not bound by logical arguments, and must be simply accepted without evidence, you've crossed the line. Its not intended (in this case) as an insult; it just IS. And, to inject my atheist viewpoint, you don't NEED the irrational to live a decent life or have a humanitarian philosophy. The contrapositive, that to live an indecent life one must be rational, is ridiculous on its face. - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11well, good thing "chance" had nothing to do with it.
if you take something simple, replicate it with minor mutations, and eliminate the least fit of the group, on a long enough timeline it begins to become very complex & efficient. They lay out circuit boards this way, it's called genetic algorithms and it works /really/ well.
as for the "oh, you're gonna burn in hell comment", why do beLIEvers keep bringing up pascal's wager? how many times do you need to be shown the folly of it before you just drop it & think of some new arguments? or did all that religion destroy your ability to think? - knulpm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@araxen
I believe the Pope's comment was not that evolution wasn't real, it was that he didn't support evolution as the sole reason to explain human existence (sorta the old "yeah, evolution happens but it's guided by God" type thing). - popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The headline illustrates a misconception with the word "Athiesm".
Athiesm is not a "belief system". Therefore it does not constitute a structure or uniformity of understanding.
Free thinking, rational and logical people do not 'believe' in that which cannot be proven, repeated or demonstrated. Yes, there are unrepeateable
cosmic and historic events from the Big Bang to evolution (which for obvious reasons cannot (?) be repeated in controlled conditions) but there
ends the commonality of "athiesm" -- as well it should.
Religion is a rigorous lock-down on one's freedom of thought. Athiesm is not. To suggest that athiests are "divided" in terms of philosophy and cosmic understanding is to state the obvious, and to fundamentally misunderstand that which separates the athiests from non-factual, primitive systems of "belief".
It is not that Athiests "believe" there is no god. It is that Athiests do not "believe in god". Those two things are extremely different. The first is a belief system. The second is a denial of the concept of belief itself. - cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9and what really grinds my gears is phrases such "denying god" i don't deny god because for me there is nothing there to deny. it just simply doesn't exist.
- toastgodsupreme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7As an atheist, let me just say... WHO CARES?!
No seriously, WHO THE ***** CARES?
I certainly don't care what other atheists believe and don't. And I certainly don't want to know. I have my own little way of thinking, and it works for me. Hopefully they have the same.
If everyone kept their ***** religion/nonreligion to themselves, we'd be a LOT better off. - Anzat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The reason atheists can't all sit around gently respecting religion is that the religion will NEVER return the favor. Modern religions are prevalent entirely because they are the most virulent and prone to stomping out their competition. Even if many religious individuals are content to live and let live, the holy books and traditions are designed to guarantee that many adherents will try to spread the faith at any cost. Religions without this feature fade into obscurity, crushed by centuries of "convert or die" Christianity, Islam, etc.
Religion is a societal virus, and atheists are the antibodies. Can you imagine getting sick and issuing an order to your white blood cells to ask the attackers, "hey, can't we all just get along and live in love and harmony with bluebirds and lollipops and *****?" A religion is no more likely to quit its attacks than a virus, as neither can be reasoned with. Atheists who want to prevent religion from overrunning society must push back or be pushed back. - datcracka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This is the ***** stupidest headline I've ever read. It's should simply say "Multiple forms of Atheism Exist" or "There's more than one take on disbelieving in God". Atheist are not a large collective. It is not a religion. There isn't any forum for disagreeing. They do not have a magazine, and people aren't writing into the magazine with differing positions on what kind of a farce faith is.
Some Christians think it's their job to convert ALL OF THE WORLD to Christianity. Some think live and let live. Some Atheists think we should rid the world of faith. Some live and let live.
Don't be ***** stupid. - foomandoonian, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@stanleyford
Atheists get angry because it's impossible to reason with someone for whom 'belief without proof' is a prerequisite.
I agree, the argument is futile, and a waste of energy. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes
Can't believe no-one has mentioned Python yet. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -22/+28Tazx...
And what about the religious groups all over the world helping poverty, hunger, disease and rebuilding war torn nations. Relgion does a lot of bad stuff but it also does a lot of good things. It's naive to think that if we get rid of religon all the worlds problems will go away. How about instead of bitching about religion you go out and encourage donations to charitys that help those in need. That would be a much better and realalistic cause. - skeptic2525, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yet another criticism of atheism that attempts to describe it using theological terminology that is completely irrelevant and attempts to divide atheists up into "sects". Atheism is not a religion, one does not "convert" to atheism. There is no atheist "dogma" - it is not a belief system but rather the absence of belief in religious dogma. And as for the loaded term “atheist fundamentalist"... Yeah, that's why there's so many atheist suicide bombers.
I think you have the right to hold whatever beliefs you please and I will respect and defend your right to have those beliefs. But I am under no obligation to respect a given belief, particularly a belief for which there has never once been any historical, archaeological, empirical evidence to support it.
Show me any evidence at all that verifies that any of the stories in the Bible, Torah, The Vedas, etc. are true or that any of the characters in these myths actually existed and if the evidence is valid I may come to respect or even embrace your deistic beliefs. Until then it holds about as much currency as countless other supernatural woo woo beliefs that have been repeatedly debunked and contradicted when confronted with scientific scrutiny of the actual evidence (or complete lack thereof).
I don't believe in deities or supernatural phenomena. Though I respect some individuals who do, I do not respect their belief in unscientific explanations. Even from a completely pragmatic perspective, religions have caused far more suffering than any kind of uplifting of the human condition. I think supernatural beliefs are a detriment to those who hold them and those whose lives they affect. I view the religious as either deluded victims, or cunning manipulators. I don't have to apologize for not believing woo woo and I'm certainly not going to dilute or misstate my lack of belief just so it's more politically correct and palatable to true believers. - Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Stop calling us "non-believers". We are believers but not of the same belief as you. We believe in science and most of us, like the VT professor, believe in people. "Atheist" is the correct term. There is one thing we don't believe in and that is a god. There is more than one belief in this world. We're all "non-believers". Just as you probably don't believe in unicorns, Zeus, and FSM, we don't believe in a god.
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Dismissive? No.. and Yes. (see?) You don't understand or don't care about what it takes to have a philosophical discussion because you are disagreeing with me on THE fundamental. Of course I dismiss people that think philosophy doesn't require logic. They're impossible to argue with. BY DEFINITION. If you want to throw away epistemology and reason, and quote wiki articles to try and look smart, you can do it without me.
We CAN"T communicate if you don't agree to be bound by logic. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@thetaoof...
Since when did charity become the exclusive domain of the religious. All those good works spoken of can be accomplished by people of good conscience. God himself is not manifesting and distributing manna to the hungry; thats being done by men and women. All religion adds is the layer of belief that adds nothing to the outcome and in many cases, detracts.
Or, are you implying that its only to be possible to do good if you believe. This is a sad argument in support of religion. - tazx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's a social and intellectual movement. Atheists according to recent polls are the most vilified minority group in the US; the last group it is safe to hate. We are expected to remain quiet and meek while the religious right pushes their views in schools and in government, while religious fanatics the world over kill those who don't believe as they do.
No atheist I know of is advocating harming believers. Rather, the weapons of atheists are logic and reason. The intent of Dawkins and Harris is to reveal religion for the irrational belief it is such that people will move away from it, not to victimize believers.
Dawkins' Call to Arms: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113 - kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Epstein is just an apologist. My beliefs fall more in the humanist camp too but I'd love to see organized religion relegated to the closet where it belongs with all the other skeleton bones.
I'm tired of the religious still trying to exert their influence over my life and those of my friends and loved ones. For example, the one organization killing civil marriage for gay people in Rhode Island is the Providence Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church.
I did enjoy Dawkin's "The God Delusion" but Harris's "End of Faith" kind of felt empty to me. He's an apologist in essence, just like Epstein.
Keep your religion to yourself. - Santabot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7What the *****?
Atheism isn't a religion, it's just the absence of organized religion, place yourself in any sect you wish, but don't speak for other people and say they're all grouped. The whole point of being an atheist is to not conform to some specific religious belief or sect. Dugg down. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I'm pretty sure he said no one knows the truth, *****.
- Anzat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Any worldview in which "some guy ate an apple" is the primary explanation for evil really needs to go back to the drawing board.
- raithetarkon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@thetaoofbill
Given the immense amount of planets in the universe, some of them would likely be similar to earth. I would say that the emergence of life was not a matter of luck, it was a matter of near inevitability.
Roll a billion sided dice a trillion times and its bound to come up 456789 a few times at least. - uberlord, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well said, the way I think of it is:
Atheists are Neutral
Theists are positive
It's the absence of a belief, not an opposite belief. - shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I am a atheist, thats right i do NOT believe there is a super natural god(s) that watch over me, or do whatever god(s) do.
Remember to include all of the old religions, you don't just not believe in Christianity or the big ones, you also don't belive in Juno, Mars, Zoroaster, Isis, The holy spirit, mercury and Many many more.
I find it kind of funny at Zoroaster is in the Firefox's spell checking thing. - my10cent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It is SO stupid how people cant leave Atheists alone, take a good hard look at the situation, you have a bunch of people trying to force another bunch of people to literary believe in something that they have absolutely NO proof exist except for a bunch of old crappy books that frankly could have been written as some kind of sick joke. Just give it up, it is everybody's birth right to believe or not believe in whatever they want.
- BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -3/+7Unfortunately for the lovey dovey's, militant atheism is closer to the answer than hoping the religious will suddenly embrace us as equals. The religious mind is inherently incapable of seeing an atheist as equal. Any atheist who grew up surrounded by religion knows this. I can't get along with anyone, and I mean literally anyone, because the religious can't look past their own point of view and treat me like I'm broken.
It's these facts that make clear to me the only free world for atheists is a world without religion. I would much rather our people found a new world where we can be free, but the likelihood of that happening is... well that would depend on what the collective atheist society is willing to do. My perfect scenario is one where the atheists of the US finally stood up under a united banner and realized the truth that this nation is no longer fit for us, and take a state for ourselves. But that DEFINITELY isn't going to happen in this current climate. Such a thing could save lives, but it would also be a show of passiveness that the religious aren't capable of. So long as atheists we will feel the hate from any religious person we come across. They will always try to pollute us with their own truth, and only by removing ourselves from them completely can we avoid our way of life being eradicated.
And don't kid yourself. That's what all God based religions want. There's nothing more threatening to the comfort of people who have given themselves over to their own ridiculous beliefs than someone who comfortably doesn't give a *****. As long as atheists exist we are casting a shadow of doubt no religious person wants to deal with. So what they do is attack, and attempt to destroy us. In many states they have already assured no child will ever have a chance to see the truth of the world, but you can bet your ass that two times a week at LEAST those same kids are being brainwashed into believing the lies they bow before.
Religion IS a threat to us. My way of life is perhaps the most pacifistic you can possibly get, but I cannot live it because religious ideals control the world around me. All I need is a bowl of weed and someone to love, but they've taken my plant and corrupted the people around me to the point that I have barely spoken to anyone for two years. But this isn't some singular phenomena. I am most certainly not the only one, and the time is approaching where atheists will have to decide whether it is worth it to continue this illusion of peace, or whether we will rise up and take back our rights.
If it means the chance for me or people like me to escape from the type of hell I have lived in for so long, I am willing to fight to the end. I want my freedom, and I know there are plenty more who feel the same way. The weakness of our cause is that the religious are as mentioned inherently aggressive, and we are generally far from that. A militant movement is the best we could ever do to match the thunderous march of religion. Those of us who know these truths must stop crying about it and start doing something about it. Religion will not stop until we are gone or castrated entirely. If you seek a world where you can be happy like I, it is time to stop trying to please everyone and start thinking strictly about you and your people. - catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I like to be called a bright, actually.
It's not "attacking" or "trying to eradicate" religion when I point out that the tenets are deeply false. You theist types may feel attacked, but that really is your problem, not mine. I say words. You call them an attack. Semantically, you are engaging in the same semantic conflation that the record industry engages in when it calls copying "stealing". Simply not true, in either case.
It may feel like an attack because you need constant reaffirmation in the deeds and words of others to keep believing what is, even to you, generic theist, patently silly ideas. For religion to survive, it needs build a fortress of intellectual privilege unique among human studies in that upfront challenges are forbidden by custom and law.
The God of the bible is indeed, by any human standard of decency, a narcissistic psychotic, a murderous creature insecure of it's own place, demanding constant flattery denial of which is punished by eternal torture that guards at extermination camps would shun as inhuman. The God of the book is creature of ultimate evil and madness, a gleeful and self-righteous dictator who is slated to murder everyone in the world and assign them to eternal torture or eternal paeans of flattery to his own wonderfulness, which is pretty much hell without the eternal third degree burning to anyone with an ounce of self-respect.
And it is time, now the Dominionists are in place across the executive branch in a quiet putsch, to step and challenge them as they build their religious... fascism, it's the only word.
Of course, it isn't really about the adults being challenged in their beliefs. It's the children, isn't it. A religionist really needs absolute control of the message being presented to his kids, otherwise they will learn that there are other religions equally as adamant about their correctness, might understand the mechanism by which they are being indoctrinated and break the control. This is demonstrated in a grandly obvious way by the construction of walled/gated cities across the Bible Belt, behind which the kids have cotton balls stuffed into their ears until they are far too Hubbarded to break free. - TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I find it funny that christians wonder why I hate most of them. I guess 2 thousand years of killing atheists, agnostics (and other ppl) should just be let go. Nevermind that they're supporting the religion that condones it (And I believe if you gave them the chance that they would do it again).
Then you pile on how many hundred of years were lost (imagine all of the tech. lost, everything Roman plus everything possibly invented).
Let's not forget about the thousands of the brightest minds this world has ever seen being silenced/flat out killed.
I think I have a pretty good reason to be militant towards christains, no? Especially when they are STLL trying to control my life with their BS. - tazx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't meant to disparage your argument, which is mostly fine. It's just spelled "atheist"/"atheism".
"Strong atheism" is the positive position that there exist no gods. It is not as epistemologically solid as simple disbelief ("weak atheism"); however, it can be logically justified by pointing to the internal inconsistencies in all god-concepts, the lack of evidence for such, and the evidence that theism is simply a cultural phenomenon that has arisen in many times and places. - Upsizer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Scheissen
I'm pretty sure imeddy made no claim to knowing the one Truth. - smek2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Stop acting like "Atheism" is just another religion. Not believing in superstition and magic mumbo-jumbo is not the same as doing so.
Just because millions are praying to some almighty super-dad in heaven, does not make it reality. You know, even a million people can be wrong: just think about the phrase "heil hitler". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Bigtom:
I'd say science started from the same desire to understand the nature of the universe. It was just a different approach to the same problem. I'm just trying to point out that his ambiguity on the origin of "Truth" doesn't necessarily point to mysticism. All I believe he is trying to point out is that there is a limit on what we know, and there might well be a limit on what we are able to discover. - donkz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They are not groups either.
- plbland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Random assumption 0
Logic 1 - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Every movement contains the seeds of its own destruction; the seeds religion planted are taking root now. I think you'll find the most fervent atheists are the ones that turned away from religion after getting to know it up close and personal.
- bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not a subscription, it's not a religion. it's not a group. In fact it is only a loose description that's only function is to categorise people when discussing religious groups because they will not fit into any belief system.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 235 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is