digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Atheists split on how to not believe

nashuatelegraph.com — Among the millions of Americans who don ’t believe God exists, there’s a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called “New Atheists.”

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 1wy1dange1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+72A "new" generation of "non-believers." Can we call them "neo-nons"?
    • 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
    • anidal, on 10/12/2007, -9/+43we must say our prayers... for the otters...
    • screamthenrun, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6...the great schism...
    • TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21They can solve this conflict once Crank Prank Timephone technology is invented and perfected.
    • kmk2006, on 10/12/2007, -20/+1 www.rzim.org/radio
    • Supurcell, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Crom laughs at Atheists! He laughs from his mountain!
    • 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!!
    • 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!"
    • 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.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes

      Can't believe no-one has mentioned Python yet.
    • 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.
    • misterfrostee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10thetaoofbill:

      The problems you cite are not caused by religion, but can be alleviated to some extent with or without religion. In many cases, religion makes these problems more severe than they could be on their own. However, the problems tazx cited, which you did not address, are problems caused by religion. Eliminating religion would be a positive step toward ridding ourselves of the ills to which tazx is refering.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Tazx

      I really don't see a problem with that. It really isn't as malicious as you make it sound. They give food to everyone equally. They force no one to become christian. They do teach and preach to them but from their point of view this is part of saving them. They aren't trying to scam them they aren't trying to gain numbers for some holy war or something. In their view they are saving their afterlife.

      It hurts no one, anyone who chooses to believe the preachers does so out of choice, and their intentions are good so what is the problem?

      The fact is they are helping people and that's the big thing that matters and it is more than many other groups can say.
    • plnegative1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4"contributing to the spread of AIDs by condemning birth control"

      what?
    • 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.
    • Harbinger67, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2ignore.
    • 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.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8@Taxz

      To say we should all be helping each other just because and not because someone told us to shows a lack of understanding on how the human race functions. Everyone gets inspiration from everyone. That is how the human race works. If your role model was someone who preached non violence and gave to the poor then chances are you will do the same. If your role model killed a bunch of people chances are you will do the same. If your role model was a famous writer perhaps you will write a novel as well. Everyone has a place where they get inspiration for their actions. And if there were no religion people would just find other reasons to do what they do. I don't see the difference between someone deciding to do good things because their religion told them or someone who does good things because their parents raised them that way. It doesn't make a difference what inspired you to do what you do. The only thing that matters is what you do.

      Erasing religion is not a worthy cause. First of all it's completely unrealalistic. Second of all it won't solve any problems. And thirdly there are few other inpirations so powerful as religion that gets people off their asses and make them do something nice for someone else.

      Religion has it's downsides. Especially when preached by someone whos intentions aren't as pure as Christ or those who seek to block education because it conflicts with their beliefs. But I think getting rid of religion will cause more harm then good.

      @afreyt
      I never said it was an exclusivity to religion. But religion is a powerful inspiration for a lot of charitys and most American charitys revolve around christian inspiration.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3This is inaccurate. There is nothing "new" about hard atheism. Nor is there anything more "reasonable" about atheists leaning towards agnosticism - or their claiming of moral high ground.
      What's possibly new is that there are no agnostics claiming moral and intellectual superiority yet - well, not that I've seen. They always do, eventually.
    • stanleyford, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@thetaoofbill - "And what about the religious groups all over the world helping poverty, hunger, disease and rebuilding war torn nations."

      I'm afraid your argument will fall on deaf ears because you do not understand the nature of the debate or the motivations of the debaters.

      In a better world, both theists and atheists would be able to respectfully engage each other intellectually and share ideas without rancor or name-calling or treating each other disrespectfully. Though I myself believe in God, I have been fortunate to know a number of intelligent, decent atheists with whom I have conversed about the nature of belief (or non-belief). They do not call me a fool or say my beliefs are ridiculous. I do not accuse them of being immoral because they do not believe in God (nor do I believe they are).

      Contrast that with the nature of the debate on this site. Even the most reasonable post by atheists usually contains some sort of jab at the "irrational" nature of theistic belief. The conversation is poisoned by invective. There is no room for the two side to come together in a respectful manner because hate for religious belief--and Christianity in particular--colors every interaction. The person who hates is not open to rational discourse; the person who hates is not willing to see both sides of the argument. Hence every discussion of atheism inevitably includes a passionate denunciation of Christianity's misdeeds (both real and imagined), with no mention of the many good things which religion has arguably accomplished.

      For the hateful atheist, every bad or wrong action done by someone using the symbolism of religion or professing to religion should be blamed upon the community of adherents at large, while the good things done by religious people are aberrations. For the hater, it is impossible to produce evidence which can vindicate the hated; every bad thing the hated has done or been associated with is proof of their evil nature, while the good things the hated ones may do become--through sometimes labrynthine twists of logic--further evidence of badness. A while ago a story made the front page which described how Ted Haggard's accuser was welcomed with open arms in his church despite the harm he had done their leader. Did Diggers congratulate them for their compassion? Did they grudgingly admit that not all Christians might be evil? No. In the minds of the haters, this undeniably kind deed became further evidence that all Christians were merely brain-washed sheep who weren't smart enough to think for themselves.

      It's no use arguing against hate. There are plenty of places where a theist can respectfully speak to atheists about their differing belief systems. This is not one of them.
    • RonPaulPres2008, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Dawkins, Harris, and new atheists are douchebags. The only thing they will do is cause problems... like the ones foretold by South Park. The other guys would make things better for everyone. I don't see why people pay attention to these two people, they are nobodies throwing a tantrum to make their mark on history. Not once have I heard enlightening words by either of them, and I've read a lot of their work. I reject them and so should you.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I agree, stanley. But my hope is to open some of these religious haters eyes. They are under the impression that the world can function on logic alone. But logic is not all there is to it. Philosophy plays a great great role in how humans interact with each other. Logic is important for understanding how things work. Logic is a great thing. But many here are under the impression that those who use philosophy to dictate their lives are incapable of thinking logically. They ignore the fact that there are millions of religious people with brilliant logical minds. A well balanced human being is someone who has both logical and philosophical inspiration.

      Albert Einstein is one of the most brilliant minds to date. The funny thing is he wasn't the best math guy of his time. He wasn't the best physics guy of his time either. But what set him a part was he not only worked in a logical state but in a philosophical state. He had the ability to understand how the world worked but yet at the same time dared to come up with wild ideas on the unknown. He was fascinated by things he couldn't touch, couldn't smell, and couldn't even prove existed. And it's that kind of brain that led to great advancements in physics that few scientists even today could have been capable of coming up with.

      There is much more to this world then logic. Philosophy is very important as well and it is religion that provides that philosophy.
    • 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.
    • RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2bury
    • borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1funny how a joke turned into a debate
    • 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.
    • RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Who are you to dictate what is Philosophy? You must not know what philosophy mean then.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@thetao...

      You never said it was exclusive, but you want to keep it around because of the fact that religion inspires people to do good. If religion wasn't there, how do you know that people wouldn't find other, better reasons to do good? And religion IS a destructive force in many ways, look at the divisions it has created, people killing each other over the details in how they think God wants them to live. We've got 7 billion people on the planet >80% of which don't believe as you do, and the vast bulk of the wars are either motivated or justified by religious differences.

      So to have the good, you are willing to accept that we will create *unresolvable* differences between ourselves, that are beyond logic and reason.

    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@renz

      If you wish to define, nay, lecture me on philosophy, then you agree we have a logical framework for our debate; otherwise, what you say needs make no sense. If you disagree that philosophy is based on logic, then we will reach no conclusions, because communication and argumentation are meaningless, and frankly, you'd be irrational and I wouldn't waste my time on you.
    • RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@afreyt
      You are being dismissive because you have no argument supporting your definition of what philosophy is. Don't try to change the subject and use insults as they will get you nowhere.
    • 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.

    • RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@afreyt
      Don't use a straw man's argument by putting words in my mouth. I never said philosophy doesn't require logic. That would defeat the purpose of what philosophy is. What YOU argue is that religion is not philosophy. Do not try to change the subject.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's completely possible that people will find another inspiration to do good. It is also completely possible that they will find another inspiration to do bad. That is my point as to why erasing religion is not a worthy cause. It will do nothing. Good people will be good and bad people will be bad. It's just as idiotic to blame the worlds problems on religion as it is to blame it on video games.

      Proof in point is the millions of people with religious beliefs who aren't killing people.

    • Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@afreyt: Spoken like a true philosopher :-)
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@thetaoo..

      I disagree with you on that. I think creating artificial differences between people is a major cause of evil in the world. Whenever you get two groups with two invisible men in the sky lending them authority, you will see them commit evil against one another. Yes, bad things might still happen in the absence of religion, but we wouldn't be CREATING non-existent differences to kill each other over.

      We'ld have to deal with concrete differences, like who has land and water rights. And I'd wager that in the absence of distractions, like what the man in the sky wants, we'ld be much closer to solving those equitably.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If that were true America would be a constant warzone with the melting pot of culture and religions we have.

      Religions don't make bad people. Bad people will kill if religion is involved or not.
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If we weren't bound by a government that puts limits on how far religion is allowed to go, we WOULD. The only Fred Phelps and his ilk are still alive is that the law protects them. Its got nothing to do with religion inspiring people not to kill him.

      Look at Iraq and Somalia as the counterexamples of what religious conflicts look like in the absence of any restraint.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So I'm confused now. Is religion evil or is anarchy evil?
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for good. I suppose that makes it either a neutral or evil force in the world. On a good day, I might give it a neutral. But judging from the meaningless killing over religious differences... (which might occur anyway over real differences)... well, you seem really attached to it. Why?

    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Who says religion isn't sufficient for good? People have done great things under the influence of religion. Martin Luther King Jr was influenced by Jesus's teachings. Even Gandhi took inspiration from Christianity. Buddhists are usually great people of peace and Christianity teaches you to love even your enemies and never judge people even if they sin against you. There are great lessons to be learned in every religion. And to shut them out because a few lunatics use them to further their agenda is not socially productive at all.
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You already said, good people will still do good and evil still do evil in the absence of religion. Are you now claiming that religion alone is the cause and that MLK would not have been good if not for religion?

      Muqtada al Sadr is, I believe, a devoutly religious person, and yet he is not good. That proves insufficiency. I'm sure I could name others.

    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm saying there is no telling what would happen without religion. But what we do know is that great things have come from the influence of religion. That is a fact. We cannot have a logical debate on what ifs. We can only debate on what has and what is happening. There is no way to speculate how good or how bad life would be without religion and it is intellectually irresponsible to claim religion has a negative or positive effect on the world when it is a fact that both good and bad things have happened due to religion.
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And I'm saying that terrible things have and do come from religion. So it appears we are at an empasse. However, I have established that it is not necessary or sufficient. Given that it is not necessary, why do you object to a movement that has done less proselytizing than any religious movement, has not been violent (and please don't trot out Stalinism, that was state-ism, itself a form of religion), and, frankly, can't possibly hurt, since it is capable of taking all the good you see in religion and removing the primary source of differences that lends strength to men like al-Sadr?

      I suspect you will see wonderful things from atheism, and you are just really, really attached to the invisible man in the sky.

      You could make the same argument against other religions. That none of them in and of themselves are requisite for goodness, they all are capable of good and evil. Atheism just removes one source of conflict.

    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Because the movement to eradicate religion would cause more harm then it is worth. People will not stand idley by while their right to practice religion freely is stripped away from them. There is no evidence that eradicating religion will cause anygood and in the process of attempting to aradicate the world from religions you will find yourself in a massive war. Not because people want to protect their religion but because people want to protect their God given right to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. And I'd be willing to bet that even atheists will fight to preserve that right. No one has the right to say what we can and can't believe. No one.

      If you think it's realistic that you can just turn off the religion switch without problems you are far less logical then any religious person on the planet.
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The movement to eradicate religion is NO WORSE than movement to replace one God with another, something that religions have been doing for thousands of years. This sounds VERY hypocritical coming from a (I assume) Christian, but essentially any religion that believes in a state of perpetual rewards or punishments and has proselytized.

      Religion has been using coercion for millenniums. The atheists can't claim God is on their side to get people to agree with them.
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well look, this has all been very entertaining, but I have a real world to go to. In short, your fears of atheism are less well founded than fears that another religion will come in and try to coerce people into believing it (ahem. *cough*.. religion of peace.. *cough*. ahem). Atheists are publishing books and arguing with people, and trying to keep religion out of public life (and rightfully so / even the religious can agree in preventing the establishment of a state religion). They are not "switching off religion", and the process by which atheism ultimately will win, will be one of gradual movement and the replacement of divine authority with human convention. I think you're worrying too much, and you should look at whichever religion you follow's history to see the incredible difference between its methods and atheism's.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Christians do not attempt to eradicate other religions. They teach people their religion and hope for the best. Just as you teach people about atheism and hope for the best. We do not force people to believe in Christ. If we did America would be a warzone. What you are talking about would require war. It would require regime change. It would require a death of democracy and freedom of belief. It is NEVER a good thing to force a belief onto someone. Even if that belief is the lack of a belief. This movement is a bad movement not because it is against my religion but because it is against freedom.
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Oh puhleeze. Look at what you have done in centuries of contact with aboriginals, replacing their native beliefs with your own, and threat of damnation in order to do it. Christmas itself was an attempt to co-opt Saturnalia or Yule and Easter was placed so it could overtake the festival of Oestre. At least TRY to be honest here.

      All we are doing is exactly what you CLAIM Christianity has done. Talking to people, trying to convince them that they can have a better existence without a divine, silent, Father figure instructing them how they should live.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The past is the past i'm talking about modern times. We do not force anyone into the religion. Everyone has a choice. We don't bribe anyone, we don't put a gun to anyones head. We say what we believe. We have no want to eradicate other religions. We have no want to halt freedom of religion and we do not ridicule others and call them ilogical because of their belief choice. If we do we aren't being good Christians. Talking and teaching your beliefs is one thing but we do not try to rid the world of everything else. And nor should you. That is against what America and the free world stands for.
    • ostracize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@stanleyford
      Thanks. Your post was probably the most accurate post I have read on digg ever.

      The fact that your post has been up for 8 hours and only at +1 (at the time of this posting) further proves your point.
  • theokandroid, on 10/12/2007, -34/+8see this is where it starts and what makes me angry about atheists in general. Atheism is just becoming another kind of religion, and just like in the South Park people will begin to disagree.

    For the record: I consider myself an atheist.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@hamandcheese

      I would suspect religion in general will go away once technology enables man to not die and live in a simulated reality.

      Not right away, but after couple hundred of years and people who have lived that long have determined that the rapture wasn't going to happen any time soon.

      Given that idea... It might be a while before religion goes away.
    • hamandcheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hell. There are still Greek mythology cults.
  • schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Of 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.
  • imeddy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10Personally I don't have a problem with so called 'religious' people, nor with those who call themselves 'atheists'. The reason for this is that there is only one Truth, and I'm pretty sure it cannot be grasped by any dualistic mind concept.

    Both sides seem pretty arrogant to me. On the one hand there are those who claim to know the 'will of god' and such, and pretend to know him (or her for that matter) on a first name basis. On the other hand there are people who deny the existence of 'god' (or whatever you want to call it) without any alternative as to the nature of this which we call Existence.

    Imho the bottom line is: there is Truth, and you have a relation to it. This relation cannot be clarified or explained by organized religion, and it cannot be denied. It has to be found out for oneself. In the meantime, I think I'd be a pretty good idea to let everyone believe what they want to, and just be tolerant and compassionate to each other.
    • Scheissen, on 10/12/2007, -15/+0ohhhhh

      You know the "Truth" May I worship you, holier-than-thou?
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I'm pretty sure he said no one knows the truth, *****.
    • Upsizer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Scheissen
      I'm pretty sure imeddy made no claim to knowing the one Truth.
    • oesj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"On the other hand there are people who deny the existence of 'god' (or whatever you want to call it) without any alternative as to the nature of this which we call Existence."

      please tell me you're joking! i'll give you a minute...









      ...big bang? - not exactly proven yet but it's the best theory i've come across
    • imeddy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@oesj
      "..big bang?"

      And what caused that?
    • bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4While I kinda liked where you were going with that, it is kinda concerning that you are so sure there is a truth without any reason to believe so other that maybe 'a feeling'. And then because you don't know what it is you consign it to the 'it cannot be known by us mortals' pile. That's how most religions start out I'll wager.

      @imeddy
      Well if you read up on your physics you would know that because our physical laws only came into existance during the big bang. And to be honest trying to fill that gap with 'It was created by He in whose image we are made' just doesn't cut it. Now that's a cop out.
    • kingbighair, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@imeddy

      We can say "we don't know what caused the big bang", and it would have nothing to do with the existence of god argument. I will never understand this way of thinking:

      "This universe sure is huge. How did it come about? Oh, Mr. Snotty Scientist, you cannot provide every answer right now? I cannot understand how everything came about. Therefore, god did it."

      This logic is laughable until you realize how many people follow it.
    • detlev409, 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.
    • imeddy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@bigtomrodney

      You still haven't answered my question 'what caused the big bang then'. There is one thing I cannot deny and that is 'I exists'. And I don't think this is just a feeling, it appears to be reality. So, there must be a cause for my (at least apparent) existence? This is the 'Truth' I refer to.

      Oh and btw, you don't have to convince me there is no personal 'god' or anything. But the question remains; why is there such a thing as existence.
    • imeddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1p.s. (edit time over..)
      The point of my first comment was that this whole god/no-god debate is pointless.

      p.p.s. @detlev409 yes thank you, nice addition ;)
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The point is no one knows exactly what caused the big bang. And anything a scientist could come up with at this point is just as good as any religion because at this point we have no real way to test any theorys. Perhaps we will as time moves on but in the meantime we shouldn't treat anyones beliefs as inferior when we cannot possibly have a good explanation for why the big bang happened at this point.
    • oesj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@mr 'and what caused the big bang?'

      i said that the big bang was a theory for the explanation of existence. which it is, as much as any reason provided by religious people.

      you say 'what caused the big bang?' (your idiotic answer is presumably 'god')
      i say 'what created god?' 'what created the thing that created god?'

      we'll be here all day.

      religious people are just those to insecure to accept that there are some things we may never be able to understand.
    • imeddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@oesj
      Oh come on, have you read anything from the comments above?
  • popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10"RELIGIOUS PEOPLE EVEN MORE SPLIT ON HOW TO BELIEVE"
  • Laytonx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5The great thing about Atheists, is that you can't find two that agree on anything. That's a group I love being a part of.
    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18well we All do agree on One single thing. There are no gods.
    • 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.
    • kingbighair, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1cybermort:

      Incorrect. There is a difference between believing there are no gods and not believing in the god that people claim exists
  • rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5humans are built to believe in something even non-belief, it's a religion i itself.
    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -4/+71 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
      2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
      3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
      4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

      with out dogma, without faith, without practices, without god there is no religion... non-believe if anything is a philosophy but NOT religion
    • Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20saying atheism is a religion is like saying "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
    • plbland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Random assumption 0

      Logic 1
    • duality, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@alphabet

      Correction: denying that Atheism is a religion is like denying that zero is a number. Of course, we have a bit of history to tell us how the zero issue went.

      As you say, the "not collecting stamps" hobby doesn't make sense, but then again, the "not Christian" or "not Zoroastrianism" religions don't make any sense either.

      Note that I did all that without actually mentioning what my personal beliefs are. ((If only all logical fallacies were this easy to expose.))
    • rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1rest my case, this you "believe"
    • nbulp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@alphabet

      Best comment on Digg so far!
  • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25inaccurate... 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.
    • cameldung, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3So you're obviously part of the atheist group who steadfastly believes yourselves not to be unified in a group as opposed to the atheist groups that believe themselves to be united in groups of shared non-beliefs.
    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@cameldung
      Atheist are about as united as theist are (christians, jews, muslims, pagans) which obviously aren't united at all. Some Atheist try to organize to oppose oppression by religion but regardless of those organizations we are not united nor dived by different dogmas regarding the concept of god(s)... unlike theist
    • phaed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Once you split a group up so much that you have effectively split everyone down to the individual and your western-dualistic mind has had its full you will see that everyone is in effect a group and in individual and part of in infinite number of groups. The only thing choosing the split is your own brain. Things are all contiguous.
    • bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No Atheists are individuals who don't need supernatural belief systems. Theists are groups, however divided they may be.
  • bromine, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1http://www.dinosaurswilleatyou.com/index2.html
    • ElRayQuieres, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow... Please seek help... I think your "art" can cause mental retardation
  • kmk2006, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1www.rzim.org/radio
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Not trying to start an argument, but atheism is the belief that god in fact does not exist. Atheism is not simply lack of belief in God, but explicit rejection of God's existence.

      In that sense it is a belief system and does constitute a uniform level of understanding, although I agree that the atheist "belief system" ends at the rejection of God and that it is impossible to find any other uniformity in the beliefs of people who call themselves atheists.
    • tazx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@mattdew: sorry, no, atheism at its simplest is simply a lack of belief in god: "a"-without "theos"-god-belief. If the number of gods a person believes exists is zero, they are an atheist; nothing more is required. Some of us go a step further and assert that gods do not exist, we conclude that they are a figment of human imagination along with unicorns and spaghetti monsters; but that is a subset of atheism, not its entirety.
    • mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Within the context of the debate that this article highlights, an "atheist" can be defined as someone who explicitly rejects God. If you take part in the discussion of religion and ultimately define yourself as an atheist, you are explicitly rejecting the existence of God by definition. How can you be intellectually aware of religious ideas and call yourself an atheist without rejecting those religious ideas and God himself? Such people are not the same as atheists who are indifferent to or unaware of religious points of view, but the article is not talking about people who are indifferent or unaware...it is talking about people who have been exposed to religious ideas and have chosen not to accept them.

      I'm not making a value judgment on atheism, I'm merely stating that no educated person can call themselves an atheist and then claim that they don't explicitly reject God.
    • tazx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I'm merely stating that no educated person can call themselves an atheist and then claim that they don't explicitly reject God."
      Sure they can. There's no god to reject; they simply don't believe it exists. Most atheists have been exposed to religious ideas, and just aren't won over.

      Atheism means what it means, and there's no need to distort the definition.

      All too often we see the statement "you can't PROVE God doesn't exist, therefore your atheism is just as much based on faith as our belief". That's a straw-man view of atheism, and an attempt to equate them as belief systems. They're not. Religion has failed repeatedly to make its case. Atheists merely need to be unconvinced. Again, if someone doesn't believe there are any gods, they're an atheist. The strong atheist position of positive disbelief goes beyond that and is a separate matter philosophically.
  • KineticShampoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Hahahahaha oh wow. I knew South Park had some sort of prophecy in that episode.
  • derder89, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Didn't this already happen in south park?
  • GeneralEwok, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5You know what really grinds my gears? These so called "new atheists" are just emulating the leaders of religions that they call out every day of their lives. There is nothing wrong with philosophy, but that doesn't mean you have to deny god to believe it.
    • 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.
    • 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
  • ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn, at least agnostics still don't have a group......as far as I know.
  • julian02392, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The creators of South Park are from the future o.O ftw?!
  • nemobushido, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To group atheists, in any single connected "non-faith", is to not truly know what atheism means. Doing so would be a dogmatic imposition on all atheists, and unfortunately the same reason as to why we don't adhere to religion.
  • knulpm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Interesting article.

    I can appreciate how some Athiests are saying how you can't truely group them together, but I disagree.

    It is inappropriate to talk about Athiests like they're a monolithic religious group, but I don't think it's wrong to group them all together. We see articles about general trends in groups who share one common unifying principles: "soccer moms", "doctors", "the ultra-wealthy", etc. talking about their behavior and their belives. I think it's fair to put out general trends in the athiest community.

    That being said, I don't necessarilly agree with the article. While people like Dawkins can be somewhat offputting, the kind of people who are offended by athiests, they're going to be offended regardless if you're a "militant" like Dawkins or if you just let it slip during a dinner party that you're an athiest. The "fundamental athiests" in the article serve a valuable purpose, they're well spoken, charismatic, and give an athiest "talking points" he can use if he ever gets in a discussion/argument with someoen of faith.
  • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Theists prove Darwin, no other explanation than evolution from lower life forms.
  • 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.
    • ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The absence of organized religion is agnostic. The absolute belief that there is no god is atheist.
    • jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ummm this whole atheist thing sure has all the trappings of a religion, a militant one at that. Why can't you just live and let live for crying out loud. It's no different than Christians comdemning Moslems and Moslems condemning Christians, it's exactly the same thing.
  • ddxChrist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think some atheists ought to look into some Eastern philosophy; a fair amount is non-theistic and contains ideas still applicable to modern life. I found Buddhism to be particularly compatible with my own philosophies when I made the endeavor to explore my life and mind.
    • knulpm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'm actually interested in this.

      I don't want to seem like I'm knocking you but I don't see how an Athiest can believe in Buddhism. Sure there's no parting of the Red Sea or water into wine miracles, but reincarnation does have some fantastical aspects to it. It's true that Buddhist thoughts on reincarnation aren't as "mystical" as Hindus, but reincarnation can't really be proven and must be taken on "faith."
    • Masterbaiter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why 'must be taken on as "faith"'? Can't you discard it? I thought that's what it was in buddhism; discard if you find it not true and accept what you find to be true. Something like non-attachment rings in my mind.
    • ddxChrist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Buddha proposed rebirth as a moral wager.

      "He made it clear in the Majhimma Nikaya Sutra that believing in rebirth would encourage us to lead a moral life by assuring us of a pleasant and fulfilling future life. However, even if rebirth does not exist, we have not lost anything by believing in it, because leading a moral life makes us into better human beings, endowing this life with meaning and significance."
      - Traleg Kyabgon. "The Essence of Buddhism"

      It isn't a dogmatic aspect of Buddhism. I know Buddhists who view rebirth as a process that actually occurs in this life as opposed to subsequent ones.
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Once you realize that everyone, whatever remains underneath all the trappings of physicality, the consciousness, the ego, memory, is the same because we've eliminated everything that distinguishes one from another, then you sort of have to accept we are all constantly reborn, but not in any sort of meaningful way. If you live a good life, you make life better for everyone that comes after, and they are, in essence, no different from you, so why would you NOT want them to be happy. Most people seem to think that reincarnation would carry the Id/Ego along with it, but we know where that lives.

      At least, thats my take on rebirth, as a lay devotee Buddhist atheist (and not a very devout one).
    • knulpm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very interesting.

      Like I said, I didn't want to be argumentative. What little I know about Buddhism was tagged on as an afterthought to a class about Hinduism. Apparently a belief in reincarnation is not as central I believe.

      It's kind of interesting how Buddha and Pascal's "wager" sound so similar...
    • BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@knulpm

      Buddhism is pretty fragmented, but there are subsets such as Zen which stress reincarnation not as some transitive soul or whatever, but that your actions have effects that last forever ( at least what I got out of the zen readings ).

      It fits pretty well, because zen stresses your own non-existence as a disconnected being... You are, then, simply a part of the world, same as the chair you're sitting on right now. "You" are affected by your own actions karmically in as far as your actions affect the world, you are part of the world, therefore your actions affect you.

      Really simple rundown of zen, and I don't think I can really do it justice here, but suffice it to say that I'm a pretty unwavering atheist, but I have respect for zen in a way that I don't for other religions
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its sort of like a flame being reincarnated in another candle. A flame is at heart a constantly changing chemical process, the particulars of a flame, its size, color, the wax, the wick, aren't important because everything is constantly changing anyway, from moment to moment the composition of the flame is changing; different atoms, different shape, different temperature. What of these things defines it? Now my head hurts.

      Then again, maybe I'm just stretching what they meant by reincarnation to the point I accept it. I have a very Western take on all this, and look at Buddhism as philosophy, not religion. The Buddha would be the first to say that he wasn't anything special and shouldn't be revered, because that would distract from your own path.
    • tazx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There are branches of Buddhism that hold no supernatural beliefs. Buddhism can offer an attractive ethical framework and view of one's own mind and the world, without being taken on as a belief system. So the original poster is correct, many atheists do find Buddhist philosophy appealing.
  • 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.
  • craftyguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This reminds me of the 'go god go!' South Park episodes.
  • 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.
    • nemobushido, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2agreed. we all have our reasons for atheism, and as an opposite force to religion itself there's no need for us to "band" together. our strength lies in our independence- from faith, and from cult-mentalities.
  • NenDaiKi, on 10/12/2007, -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.
    • bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Seriously, calm the ***** down. What are you wearing a hat that says Atheist on it? Two years? I'm an Atheist and I have never had anyone but the odd crazy Mormon or Born Again at my door take offense. Maybe don't wear it as a badge of honour and just get on with living.

      And maybe put the buddha down, you're getting paranoid.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"The religious mind is inherently incapable of seeing an atheist as equal. Any atheist who grew up surrounded by religion knows this."

      As the agnostic son of an atheist who grew up and remains surrounded by religion, I challenge this statement. There are a lot of preconceptions floating around, but religious people can be just as open minded and accepting as atheists and atheists can be just as closed minded and unaccepting as religious people, us all being human and whatnot.
  • 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.
    • rlh1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think that only western Europe was in the dark ages, due primarily to barbarian hordes destroying the empire.
      The eastern half of the Roman empire lost very little and ruled from Constantinople until 1400's until the Islamic hordes ended their reign. The eastern empire was Christian....
      All of Europe was not even Christain untill after 1100.
      With 75% of the world being non-Christain, how come they didn't advance too much either, for the last 2000 years.
      I think that you're paranoid......
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Just how much science has been lost due to religion? Really, quantify that for me in some way.

      Considering how much important scientific work throughout history has been done by people who were not only religious, but members of the clergy, your argument holds little weight.

      Be an atheist if you want, I'm cool with that. Heck, be mad at the fundies if you want to, and fight them with legislation if they attempt to alter your way of life; I'll fight with you, I can't stand those guys. But if you're going to say that religion had nothing but a negative affect on the sciences, and I'm going to have to call you on that one. That's a complete re-write of human history.

      Also, don't lift Rome up too high, as rlh1 says above, not everything was lost, and they had their own internal problems. You cannot blame the fall of Rome on Christianity.
    • jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So you're going to treat the believers the same way you claim atheists have been treated. Real smart.
    • WDot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I mean, I dunno about you, but I know I haven't been around for 2000 years killing atheists. Heck, has anyone anywhere even been around for 2000 years? Are you blaming me for the sins of a corrupt few that share my beliefs in word only? Anyway, Christians have had their share of prosecution, read your history (Roman Empire, Islamic military expansion, etc).

      Anyway, what kind of open-minded, logical person are you by saying that you "hate most" of us anyway? If atheism really wanted to gain a better image, maybe they should try to NOT be militant. Lead by example. Saying you're militant because crappy but loud representatives from other religions are is ignorant.
    • TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Unfortunately for you ***** suckers, if you're not going to help anything, you're part of the problem to me. You let them do whatever they please. Hell, look at the big gov'ts/corps. of the globe, especially the U.S. They're terrorists taking away everyone's rights and committing sickening crimes, but you're right by there side. You think religion is any different (it's more secret nowadays)?

      People that do evil things (everyone above), only understand one thing, Force. The bible is right about one thing, an eye for an eye.
      And I never said it applied only to xtians, they're just a popular group and being discussed a lot on here.

      "Just how much science has been lost due to religion?" - I never meant anything about Rome falling, but all (ok 99% :P) of their technology, culture, etc was lost and suppressed due to the xtians, not from Rome's fall, but from the xtains rise and in part, their product, the Medieval Ages. I don't know about you, but f you have studied the Roman feats, they were ***** geniuses.

      "they should try to NOT be militant" - I've thought about that, but where has it gotten everyone nonreligious? Killed, imprisoned, tortured, insulted, belittled, etc. True, the extremes don't happen much anymore (in developed countries obviously not, but in a 3rd world country I bet it is not that safe). Xtians will continue to take advantage of anyone's complacency/niceness to push their selfish agenda (most of them ignorantly unknowing). I want to push my agenda to free everyone and dispell these assholes from power. Is that so bad?
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I never meant anything about Rome falling, but all (ok 99% :P) of their technology, culture, etc was lost and suppressed due to the xtians, not from Rome's fall, but from the xtains rise and in part, their product, the Medieval Ages."

      You're the one who brought Rome into it, not me, and it's evident from your words here that you don't know a thing about the history of Rome, the fall of the empire, or the context of that series of events. Get to a library, and quick.

      "I don't know about you, but f you have studied the Roman feats, they were ***** geniuses."

      While I have not studied their technical expertise in detail, I know enough to agree that you're right. But I also know enough about their society to know that Rome was crumbling from within long before the Christians came. You have a very selective view of history, and that is dangerous.
  • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The ultimate in sadness is dedicating your life to believing in nothing and hating those who have faith, then arguing over who does it better.
  • warriorscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We of the United Atheist alliance are the only true Unbelievers our answer to the ultimate question is the superior one.
  • fraul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1For me this news only proves that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are genius. This really already happened on south park.
  • mgks2007, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Actually if you take the bible back to its original text you'll find that it agrees with science quite a bit. for instance nowhere does it say or indicate that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.It was created in the beginning .A true Christian is supposed to plant a seed and move on not stand on a street being fanatical and drive people further away from God.But I guess we all find out the truth in the end
  • chaos7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3atheism rules. religion sucks. go to christianitymeme.org
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The best way to convince someone of your POV is to try not to convince them. No need to convert people to atheism, just live your life adhering to your ideals and people will follow.
  • mgks2007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I just wander how many atheist have suddenly found God just before they died.How many of you ask yourself what if He does exist.
    • kmk2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1several
    • BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2what if Zeus or Appolo exist but YHWH doesn't?

      boy are you gonna be ***** then, eh?
  • Anvilman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Stupid title. People who "who don ’t believe God exists" are agnostics, people who believe God DOESN'T exist are atheists.
    • Masterbaiter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Incorrect, people who believe are called drones, people who control those drones are called overmind.
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3People who don't believe God exists and therefor think he might are just afraid of commitment.

      Why are they agnostic about Yahweh, but not about Zeus, or Chrom, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? When they can answer that satisfactorily, they will either be atheists, or believers.

      I'm only an atheist because I put the likelihood of "God" at less than 0.00000000.....1%

      I'm not saying its impossible, but I'm not agnostic.

    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What makes you think we're not agnostic about Zeus, or Chrom, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think you have seriously considered the ramifications of thinking that any/all gods could have finite probabilities of existence.

      Give me odds that the FSM is real. Given that many of the other religions could be real, and are pretty -much mutually exclusive. I suspect that to really be agnostic about all of them, you are either really atheistic about most of them, or have no difficulty believing three thousand contradictory things could be true at once.

      And you are definitely not a typical agnostic, who dismisses Zeus, Chrom and the FSM out of hand but makes exception for Yahweh.
    • nirc819, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0agnostics are people who 'don't know if god exists'
    • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2None of us KNOW anything. How can you prove or disprove God? You always, if you are honest, have to admit that you could be wrong. So, even atheists have to admit that there is some vanishingly small probability that the universe has conspired against them to make them wrong, but it doesn't seem to fit with what they have observed. Likewise the religious have to admit that they could be being duped, all they have is their life experiences to draw on, and they aren't omniscient.

      Its when you treat God like a coin flip... that is awkward.
  • misterfrostee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Forgive me for dipping into the murky wells of conspiracy, but this article strikes me as a backlash of sorts against an increasingly popular movement. Many would rather the masses hold tight to their irrational superstitions, their easily-controlled fears, their credulity. If we as non-believers begin to identify ourselves according to the guidelines of those who seek to quash our voices, we have handed over an important means of control. There is no split unless *we* say there is.
  • remotedemon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well i don't think it matters much what we say here...

    The fact is atheism is on the rise. Most important to me is that it is on the rise in America. The sooner we become an atheism majority the better for the safety of the world.

    I think it will still take 2 more generations to do this in the USA and the world.
    • jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So what do you plan to do with all the believers? Start a war against them?
  • centauri, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Its funny actually, It seems that we all have some sort of faith, whether its faith in ourselves, in god, in the flying spaghetti monster, or Buddha. We all believe in something, And its even funnier that most atheists I've run into have their faith firmly planted in atheism. I just find it funny, We all have a psychological need to believe in something. Beliefs are good things, we need them in order to operate. I like how theory these days has proven into stone cold science. Thats what makes me sad, people going and touting theories as infallible truth(remember 7th grade science when they made that distinction?)[don't take me wrong, i think theories are good, and necessary for the advancement of science, but they aren't fact, in fact, in most cases, they're complete speculation, and cannot be tested]. Belief in theories is just about as wild as belief in god. Personally I'll take my hard cold facts, and god. :D
    • jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1You know I was just getting ready to type the same thing, almost. Atheism is just another "religion" condemning others that don't believe exactly as they do. I find it laughable to think that they are so certain there is no God. Humans are not that highly evolved and not smart enough to really say with any kind of certainty one way or another. At any rate, I classify them as just another religion, just without the moral compass. Otherwise, no different from any of the others.
    • looselips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Centauri
      The "cold hard facts" point to:
      God was most likely created by man.
      Entertainment, life-lessons, Rye (ergot) trips, or indoctrination through fear.
      Take your pick, it could have been any or all of these; but the most likely answer is not some god, who cares so much, he never came back to help, but who might bbq anyone who is without complete devotion to an unknown version of "his" true opinion.
      The God Belief would be so much easier to swallow if every "holy book" ever written was identical, word for word; and if God had his own Network Television Station, where he performed miracles, "Live From the Vatican".

      Or recorded from God's consciousness; if he was there, is all knowing, wanted the best from us, and if "he" cared at all for our survival as a species (as a father should), he would have been back by now, even the bible writers thought Jesus should have been back by now and definitely within their own personal lifetime(s); the writers were wrong, and on so many levels (slavery, women=property, tolerant of war/murder, etc...).

      If one god has ever existed, then they all must be real, right?
      Why have none of them ever made themselves and their powers known to the world?
      The only logical and rational explanation is because they do not exist, except in dramatized exaggerated horror stories.
  • Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Please will people stop making ***** names up for us. What is so hard with understanding... 'Don't believe in god(s)'?
  • kestrel9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The other conflict is between atheists who file lawsuits and those who don't. I'm not a big fan of lawsuits.

    My view is:
    a. There is probably no God.
    b. If there is a God, he can't be obeyed, because he isn't talking to us.
    • ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2My belief is that there is a god, but that he only talks to the dominant life form on this planet: corn.
  • nirc819, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There seems to be no God. I haven't seen him lately and I haven't heard about anyone who did.

    If there is a God, I would expect he can create a better world. He does not need human beings to thank him every day for what he did. He doesn't need human being at all.

    If there is God, and small children die all around, it is not a god that I want to have around - I'd rather deal with real people
  • kayjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0lol, i wonder how long itll take till someone gets shot for not NOT believing in god the right way.
    • jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1or get shot for believing in God in any way.
  • kmk2006, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 www.rzim.org/radio
  • 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.





    • 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.
  • mgks2007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0hey nird819 he did ,but man screwed it up dumbass
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Atheists aren't unified? Really? I think we're pretty unified on the idea that religious people are fundamentally non-critical, anti-scientific, illogical, primitive, dangerous, philosophically dysfunctional, commonly self-contradicted and generally less educated. Religious people have also been responsible for much of the pain, war, violence and hatred towards their fellow man despite claiming to stand for the opposite.

    Seems pretty unified to me.
  • hotdog8000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2proof god doesn't exist
    http://thecreationfallacy.blogspot.com/
  • whosmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Infinitives split on how not to use grammar.
  • LiquidTim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a shame. As an Atheist I think one of the strongest things we have is our unity. We aren't as separated as the many different sects of religions.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.