’)I mean, come on. These display wars are silly but why is it the new breed of atheists feel like they need to spit in the face of everyone else?
I don’t like conservative Christians pushing their God as the only God and hellfire and brimstone to those who disagree – nor do I like the new atheist idea that they should go around belittling everyone’s beliefs. You don’t believe in religion, great for you and that’s your right. But why do they feel the need to emulate such luminaries as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to get this point across?
(via)
I think they need to be MORE vocal, not less.
In the past 48 hours we’ve seen reports of Jim DeMint (R-SC)complaining about the new Capitol Visitor Center because it doesn’t pay homage to his Christian God. We’ve seen a Utah legislator trying to ban the phrase “Happy Holidays” from retail stores in his state. Finally, to my great shame, it was learned that here in my homestate of Kentucky our Department of Homeland Security has in its official mission statement guidelines the requirement that we all recognize God’s role in providing for the safety of our Commonwealth because some religious whackjob (a Democrat no less) slipped some idiotic provision into our lawbooks.
I want more atheist pushback, not less.
I don’t see anything wrong with it, Oliver. I think your characterization is a little over the top. I mean, it’s not like the sign says “You’re all a bunch of idiots!” or anything.
I dunno. I’m not a person of faith (either way–I’m a nonpracticing agnostic), and two wrongs don’t make a right, but mocking organized religion falls somewhere in the Turnabout is Fair Play arena after all the shit those untaxed bastards have pulled over the millenia.
There should be no displays. Because if you open it up to one religion you have to open it to all. And the lobby gets filled with manger, menorah, pagan solstice display, etc etc etc.
As for this particular sign, yeah, that’s assery on display. Hurry for free speech and all. I’ll support your right to say it. But let’s be clear: The point being made isn’t that the winter celebration was originally some pagan right so lets clarify the origins of the festival. It’s an in-your-face-because-your-beliefs-are-wrong attack.
“You’re all a bunch of idiots!” or anything.
The sign almost explicitly says that. It’s the equivalent of the Christian sign saying “Silly Jews, you don’t believe in Christ. You’re clearly going to hell.”
All dumb.
Big deal. One sign versus (probably literally) millions of manger scenes and Christmas trees across the country. I’m glad that no one (at least what I could tell from the media reports on this issue, including the one that Oliver showed) have tried to take down the atheist sign.
Nobody is saying atheists can’t be vocal about their belief, its just that they don’t have to be dicks like the con christians are.
Yikes, “no one…has tried…”
And you know what? The vast majority of manger scenes and Christmas trees aren’t attacking anyone’s beliefs. You think there’s an equivalency between a simple display and an insult? Cause there isn’t.
Well, let’s face it, we do get a little cranky at being marginalized. After all, one sign means all we atheists are douchebags, while OF COURSE people like Pat Robertson certainly can’t be taken as representative of Christians as a whole. Imagine the hate mail you’d get if you made a post about Fred Phelps entitled, “Wow, Christians SUCK!”
All dumb.
Well, yeah. I think that’s kind of the point.
How is it an insult? Don’t you think it’s kind of an insult that I’ve had to listen to xmas music since the day after the election?
I think Mr. Willis has it right.
There’s a difference between a sign that says, “This is what I believe”, and a sign that says, “What you believe is crap”.
This is one of only a couple points on which we disagree, Oliver. There are clear distinctions between vocal atheists and vocal Christians:
Atheists are an embattled minority in this country. Although Christians like to play the victim, in actuality, it’s the atheists that get the social shaft. It’s the least-trusted, least-respected demographic in the country by a wide margin. Ignorant people think that if you don’t believe in God, that you are inherently selfish, immoral, and downright evil. This is wrong.
On balance, atheists are more reasonable and logical than Christians, and encouraging people to question their belief in God is of great value in the interest of furthering the cause of reason in our society. Organized religion breeds illogical and dangerous thinking, and I support efforts to increase the baseline level of logic in the country. On the other hand, hacks like Robertson and Falwell are actively trying to spread illogical, unreasonable, and downright stupid ideas to the masses.
The billboard says, “Imagine no religion.” It’s not even specifically targeting Christians. It’s not an insult to those that believe, but instead a call for people to question their beliefs. There’s no reason that this should be so “insulting” and bothersome to religious folk if they’re secure in their beliefs, if they’ve considered all the available evidence and decided that God exists. I see no reason that we should NOT encourage people to question their long-standing beliefs. It’s a scientific mindset that I think would prove very useful in this country.
I wish those blacks weren’t so uppity…
I wish those gays weren’t so flamboyant…
I wish those new atheists weren’t so rude…
I suppose I’m one of those rude new atheists. And that you aren’t supposed to tell adults there isn’t a god any more than telling kids there isn’t a santa claus. Or that Chistians and Muslims or whoever else just believes in one god/ess/s/es more than I do, and they are just one rational step away from sleeping in on the weekend if they want.
Because it’s not like atheists are constantly assaulted by pubic displays of their religions. It’s not like Congress is opened with a prayer, or that they’d altered the flag pledge and our money to have God-affirming messages.
Excuse me. When any prominent atheist is on record as condemning the entire nation because it allowed a religious ceremony to occur, or issuing a fatwa on whole townships for exercising their rights and voting for candidates who spoke about their Christian faith, then you can say atheists “emulate” Robertson and Falwell, and not fucking before.
Putting up a sign that maybe might annoy some people because it might have the temerity to remind them that not everyone implicitly shares and is in lockstep with their beliefs? As both Oliver and Bill Maher have succinctly put it, “nigga, please!”
Also: What Rheinhard said.
Oliver,
I totally agree with you. Some how atheist are devoid of the trappings of the uber Christians. As far as I am concerned their belief in God not existing gets them drunk with self righteousness just like a Bible thumping Christian. Although I am a Christian, I don’t suppose to know the answer or truth to all life. Unfortunately some of my Christian and Atheist brother do think they know it all and would like nothing better than to spite each other.
Manger scenes on public property are probably the least offensive “borderline” act of the theocratic team. I just wish I could see atheist activists grow up and say “we don’t agree with the manger scenes and we don’t agree with the In God We Trust on the currency, but we have bigger targets. We object for the record, and reserve the right to return to this later. Now: about screwing up our educational, health and military policies for the last eight years, Team Dobson?….”
Mind you, I don’t approve of the use of publicly-owned structures for religious advocacy, but I guess I just don’t see much “advocacy” in an 3-D artistic depiction of a religious scene. It’s not even like the 10 commandments in the courthouse, giving an appearance of theocratic rulings or laws or of partiality where “equal justice under law” (i.e. “justice” period) should reign.
I am an atheist and I cannot stand Dan Barker and his wife, or at least their podcast. I listen to other, better, non-douchebags on iTunes, such as Dogma Free America and Point of Inquiry – shows that don’t scream “Eek!” at every turn, that don’t take a bigoted low road. Even PZ Myers is less obnoxious than the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s materials. Only disagreement I have with Oliver is that Barker and his wife Annie Laurie Gaylor are not “new douchebags”; they have been at this for over a decade. They don’t have to be as “evil” as Robertson and Falwell to be as annoying in tone.
Speaking as an atheist: The “New Atheists” may be right, but they’re mostly a**holes.
In a perfect world atheists wouldn’t have to behave like dicks to get their point across, but you know as well as I do that the Religious Right can’t be reasoned with.
I’m a big fan, but your behavior when addressing racial insults could also be described as “dick-like” if this is the barometer for measuring such things.
Atheists have remained silent for decades, and the extreme Christian elements in this country STILL try to ram their religious beliefs down our collective throats, so I won’t shed any tears when the non-Christians play hardball.
You know what happens when one side bleats incessantly about some perceived “war on religion” for too long? Eventually the other side says “fine, let’s give ‘em one.”
Just my two cents.
Thank you, Oliver. I used to read Pharyngula every day because of its strong stand against creationism. But I can’t stand it anymore because of PZ’s own arrogance. I get why atheists may feel it’s unfair to ask them not to be obnoxious about it when [some!] theists have acted in a far worse manner throughout history. But that’s no excuse for a lack of individual civility.
You know what this all reminds me of? That great scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Faisel is explaining to a newsman about Lawrence’s insistence on mercy towards prisoners. “With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which is more reliable.”
Atheist or Religionist, the more passionately you feel about an idea, the more likely you are to forget your principles at a time of stress and behave like an abusive jackass.
Christians believe that anyone who isn’t Christian is going to burn in hell forever.
How is that not the most obnoxious, sociopathic belief system ever?
Sure, some atheists are annoying. But we don’t think you’re eternally damned if you don’t agree with us.
Look at the first paragraph you see when you click on Oliver’s link:
“No longer content to silently disavow religion, the so-called New Atheists are on the offensive. Borrowing tactics from the faithful, nonbelievers have taken to proselytizing in books and in the media. And yes, they’re even in foxholes.”
Why is it the atheists who must remain “content to silently” disbelieve? Oh, and one is subjected to proselytizing in books and in the media BY CHOICE – anyone who does not wish to listen can choose not to read said book, can change that channel, or can turn that radio dial. I’ve given you three very recent examples of the opposition legislating their proselytizing to the rest of us, or at least attempting to do so.
White Whale, please. As an atheist, I have never claimed to know “the answer or truth to all life.” I’m not even sure I know what that means. I doubt you can supply an example that fits your description.
If I can address what I think you meant, I believe you have it backwards. Christians, by their very nature, do believe they know “it all” (when it comes to religious beliefs). If you don’t believe in Jesus Christ, if you don’t believe in the Christian God depicted in the Bible, then you are not Christian. If you are Christian, and you believe the aforementioned items, then you ARE of the belief that others are wrong. Catholics and Hindus and Shintoists and Zoroastrianists and Mormons and Wiccans cannot ALL be correct; belief in any one of these structures necessitates disbelief in the others.
I would like to point out that there is no good, logical, reasonable, scientific reason to believe in any one religion more than any other. There is no evidence to suggest that Christians are correct and Hindus are wrong. Each are equally likely to be correct… and that likelihood is infinitely close to zero.
Simply put, there are an infinite number of possible gods out there. The odds that any one religion actually has it correct is therefore close to zero – without evidence to support their belief structure, the “correct” religion would have to have stumbled upon the answer by random dumb luck, an exceedingly unlikely event indeed.
Meanwhile, we atheists are not purporting to “know it all.” Scientists are, by great measures, atheist and agnostic – and they are the ones trying to learn about the natural world. We acknowledge that the overwhelmingly likelihood is that all religions are bogus, and we will continue to hold that position until someone comes up with evidence that actually supports the idea of a divine being. But so far, no one has… and science keeps on filling the gaps in our knowledge, where in history these gaps were filled by baseless religious dogma.
Bottom line, and a key difference between the two groups: Religious (especially Christian) people encourage (either explicitly or implicitly) a follower mentality. They encourage people to NOT think for themselves, but instead put trust in this omnipotent father figure in the sky. Meanwhile, atheists are out there, trying to make people think logically about religion, trying to get people to think FOR THEMSELVES. One of the two groups is acting nobly, and the other not. Do you need to ask which one is which?
While waiting for my other, much more rude comment, to be approved, I’ll just say this. If I was out as an atheist, I would lose my job. End of the semester, there goes my job. Thats it.
Too bad the college I have fallen in love with will only hire Christians. They can be any race or denomination, gay or straight, etc etc etc, but only Christians need apply. Tell me again why teaching the sciences needs me to believe in a bronze age myth, followed up with a pile of Jesus fanfic. Oops, rude again.
So sorry.
Ah, but Oliver,you are an atheist, too!
Unless you believe in the one true [pick one, and just one] God, Seuz, Jupiter, Mithra, Satan, Mother Nature, Gaeia, The Great Spirit, Money and on and on and on.
Chill. It is liberating to come out of the closet and admit you are an atheist, as I have. I applaud the so called obnoxious breed of new atheist. Time to give a little of what we get back.
Peace and Love.
Well, Oliver, how exactly do you propose that non-believers should present their views? Give us examples of why you deem to be acceptable discourse instead of just a lot of complaining with no added value.
Greylocks, because it’s a city AND a state — hence the applicability of “city-state.”
Again, Wikipedia:
Vatican City, officially the State of the Vatican City (Italian: Stato della Città del Vaticano),[8] is a landlocked sovereign city-state whose territory consists of a walled enclave within the city of Rome. At approximately 44 hectares (110 acres), and with a population of around 800, it is the smallest independent state in the world by both population and area.
Like I said… it’s a unique creature, and causes such interesting effects on international diplomacy.
J.
Again, I’m a fan, so I don’t want this to turn into a Bash Oliver Willisfest, and in the spirit of comraderie, does no one else find it ironic or funny that this entry immediately follows a post about Karma?
“Christians believe that anyone who isn’t Christian is going to burn in hell forever. How is that not the most obnoxious, sociopathic belief system ever?”
How, Jaim? Easy. Because it’s possible to be a Christian and not believe that. (Example: Me.) A lot of Christians belive Hell is merely the rejection of God and the self-inflicted sorrow that comes from His absence, while Heaven is acceptance of God’s grace. We don’t think you’re going to “burn” – we just feel like you’re missing out on an incredible blessing. And as for concepts like “forever” – too linear.
Mambochicken: “Christians, by their very nature, do believe they know “it all” (when it comes to religious beliefs). …Meanwhile, we atheists are not purporting to “know it all.” Scientists are, by great measures, atheist and agnostic…”
Actually, by your own definition, knowing it all is exactly what atheists claim. They claim that “All” is a set of one – that is, that the only realm in existence is the natural world. They don’t claim to know everything about the natural world, any more than a non-crazy Christian would claim to “know the Mind of God”. (Even the most rigid literalist won’t claim that outright.)
But where you really lose me is at your claim that religious people, “especially Christian” people encourage a follower mentality because they all insist upon an unthinking acceptance of a Great Straw Man in the Sky. (Invoking the GSMS is always a bad sign.) There are innumerable examples of the religious impulse doing just the opposite: Early Christians who sought accepted or sought out martyrdom. Medieval Cathars, Lollards and Hussites who insisted on following their consciences in dangerous defiance of Church hierarchy. What do you think the Protestant Reformation was about?
Take it to modern times with the Quakers, who are all about waiting for individual inspiration. Or the Catholic Worker conscientious objectors who were thrown in jail because their own clergy didn’t back up their individual pacifism? Or the social reformers led by preachers who refused to accept society’s ideas about right and wrong…
On the other hand, according to you, noble atheists seek only Truth? I can name you several officially Atheist movements that were not shy about insisting on the hive mind (in Cambodia, North Korea, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia…).
I don’t dispute that there’s an argument to be made for atheism. It’s just that you haven’t described that argument here. Instead you resorted to plainly false historical generalities and an unsupported cheap shot with “especially Christians.”
I can’t stand historical illiteracy.
Why are the “new” atheists such douchebags? Simple. Atheism in itself has become a religion of one: themselves. I find it kind of ironic that the same group of people who say there is no God say so with the same fervor and tenacity of a born again Christian, or even worse a cultist.
Saffi, no self inflicted sorrow here. Actually, I found atheism to be profoundly freeing.
BS.
This new conventional wisdom that says “Atheism is its own religion” is nothing more than a talking-point regurgitated by those who want non-believers to remain content in their silence.
Mindlessly repeating nonsense? Now THAT’S “being a dick”.
As someone once said, “Well behaved atheists rarely make history.” Or maybe I have that slightly wrong.
It’s always amusing to watch the fainting spells that come over people (including plenty of liberals – Oliver, we hardly knew ye) when members of despised minorities get fed up with being expected to behave in the way the bigoted/ignorant majority is comfortable with.
Religious Privilege is every bit as real as its siblings, White, Male, and Straight (among others), and it has terrifying consequences in real people’s lives. Forgive us if we decline to be extremely polite about these matters in the exalted presence of our faith-soaked betters.
Selma, Montgomery, Seneca Falls, and Stonewall were not populated by minority representatives that the majorities found acceptably polite – quite the opposite. Standards of Proper Minority Conduct that serve to keep minorities oppressed can respectfully go fuck themselves.
Good points, Rieux.
Let us also remember that whether or not you agree with their actions, what these atheists are doing is a response.
Without that initial action, there would be no reaction.
Well, let’s face it, we do get a little cranky at being marginalized.
Well that’s clearly an excuse for douchery. Except it isn’t. If the best that can be mustered is that some Christians are a-holes so we should be a-holes too, that’s pretty weak tea.
Don’t you think it’s kind of an insult that I’ve had to listen to xmas music since the day after the election?
People are holding a gun to your head and forcing you to listen to Xmas music? And if you’re talking mall music, what about the other religion-less swill they pipe in the other 11 months of the year?
Ignorant people think that if you don’t believe in God, that you are inherently selfish, immoral, and downright evil. This is wrong.
On balance, atheists are more reasonable and logical than Christians, and encouraging people to question their belief in God is of great value in the interest of furthering the cause of reason in our society.
As Joe Biden would say, God Love Ya, but how could you put these two paragraphs in the same entry and not see how discordant they are? To paraphrase, you say: “Ignorant people are annoyingly dogmatic. Now, I know the one true way and anyone who disagrees just hasn’t seen the light yet because they’re not as reasonable and logical as I.”
This is the same mindset, its the mindset I would assume – and did for a while – that atheists were opposed to. But increasingly it seems atheism just want to do the same as the Christian conservatives do. Its distasteful, I don’t care how much in the minority you may be, it isn’t excusable.
I see no reason that we should NOT encourage people to question their long-standing beliefs.
If you were doing that I’d have no problem. But you’re telling people they’re dumb then wondering why they’re not raring to go to follow you into scientific inquiry.
In a perfect world atheists wouldn’t have to behave like dicks to get their point across, but you know as well as I do that the Religious Right can’t be reasoned with.
If new atheists were targeting the religious right, I wouldn’t exactly condone it but they’d have a better argument. They’re just targeting religion and being dickish about it. When the religious right attacks Muslims, it doesn’t make any sense and is wrong. Ditto here.
I’m a big fan, but your behavior when addressing racial insults could also be described as “dick-like” if this is the barometer for measuring such things.
When I am a dick to racists, I’m being a dick to racists. The comparison to what I’m seeing from atheists would be if I addressed every racial slight from a racists to all white people. I’ve never done that in my life.
Christians believe that anyone who isn’t Christian is going to burn in hell forever.
SOME do. I don’t understand why you guys can’t see you’re painting with the same broad strokes as the Christian right. Sure, they’ve got a bigger megaphone. Doesn’t make it right.
There is no evidence to suggest that Christians are correct and Hindus are wrong.
Yet, mambochicken, you’re doing the same above. You’ve elevated Atheism above Christianity (and other religions).
Well, Oliver, how exactly do you propose that non-believers should present their views?
Present your ideas and beliefs without belittling the faith or non-faith of others. It’s not a complex thing. Quit treating the rantings of the religious right as a substitute for all of Christianity. Does Christianity have some wackjob elements to it? You bet, as do all religions and belief systems – including atheism. If everyone got off their superiority horses we’d be better off.
Selma, Montgomery, Seneca Falls, and Stonewall were not populated by minority representatives that the majorities found acceptably polite – quite the opposite.
Yeah, sorry but you have to shove that. While I’m the first to admit that atheism is not looked upon kindly by the majority of Americans, you’ve got to go a long ass way to find any sort of systematic persecution of atheists that even remotely compares to the experience of blacks, native americans, gays, or women.
Do I think we should have a real separation of church and state, and that our pols shouldn’t be subject to religious tests? You bet. But there are no atheist/believer drinking fountains (and if there were I’d be screwed because neither applies to myself).
And I understand why some may assume this, but I’m not an atheist. I don’t know that God or some higher power doesn’t exist. I have no evidence that says this, and I don’t believe in absolutism. Neither am I a Christian. Though raised one, there are clearly too many holes and inconsistency in Christianity.
I consider myself an agnostic. I think there’s a purpose to the universe and I have no idea who or what is behind it. My credo is to be good to others and more or less stick to the moral code of the 10 commandments and hope I was a good enough person to get to play XBox in the afterlife.
Simple question: why is it the atheist display that’s an example of douchebaggery but not the religous display?
As has been pointed-out in an earlier post, that sign did not single-out any specific religion for scorn – but your reaction proves that for far too long this fight has been ceded to the Christian point-of-view. Your first reflex is to assert that they are the aggrieved, that they are the victims, that somehow they are under assault, when it’s the opposite which is true. Luckily the government officials in this case seem to be handling it much better than you have.
I’d prefer that none of those displays exist – but if one goes up, I’d rather see all of them go up. Give me a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Wiccan – whatever religious display any citizen of that city wants, because if you allow one, you’d better allow them all.
Then sit back and see who bitches and moans the most, because I’ll bet you my life savings it would be the Christians, and we both know it.
Oliver, your principal arguments against my points fail because you insist (and you’ve done this for a LONG time) that atheism is just another form of religion.
Me: On balance, atheists are more reasonable and logical than Christians, and encouraging people to question their belief in God is of great value in the interest of furthering the cause of reason in our society.
OW: As Joe Biden would say, God Love Ya, but how could you put these two paragraphs in the same entry and not see how discordant they are? To paraphrase, you say: “Ignorant people are annoyingly dogmatic. Now, I know the one true way and anyone who disagrees just hasn’t seen the light yet because they’re not as reasonable and logical as I.”
Here’s the thing, Oliver. What I said is anything but ignorant or dogmatic. If you assume that the population of atheists and a population of Christians in this country have the same distribution of intelligence, reasoning capabilities, etc., their core difference will still believe that the Christians believe in the existence of an entity for which there is absolutely no evidence for – I would call this an irrational, illogical, or unreasonable belief. Meanwhile, atheists do not have such a belief; instead, due to the astounding lack of evidence, they instead conclude that there is no supernatural entity – a logical conclusion. The theists have one more irrational component than the atheists, and therefore ARE more irrational than atheists, on balance. It’s not hard to understand. Furthermore, if Jesus descends from the clouds tomorrow and starts healing lepers and making the blind see, you can bet your ass that I will admit I was wrong. The same does not apply for theists – you can argue with them all you want, explain the reasons why atheism makes so much more sense than theism, and they just flat out reject the argument for no logical reason. This is unreasonable.
Me: There is no evidence to suggest that Christians are correct and Hindus are wrong.
OW: Yet, mambochicken, you’re doing the same above. You’ve elevated Atheism above Christianity (and other religions).
Again, atheism is not a fucking religion. I am an atheist because there is no evidence to support the notion that a supernatural entity exists. The burden of proof does not fall on the atheist to prove God doesn’t exist – it’s impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the theist who insists that God DOES exist. The theists have failed to provide this evidence, and so the only reasonable conclusion is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. In other words, to reject theism and conclude that there is no God. I have “elevated atheism” (please don’t capitalize it) because it is a scientifically-responsible explanation for the true nature of the world.
Oliver, if I told you that there was an invisible purple unicorn that lives inside your dishwasher 9 months a year, and the other 3 months it vacations in your showerhead, would you believe me? Fuck no, you wouldn’t, unless I could provide you some proof that what I said was true. The same goes for belief in God. There is no fundamental difference between the notion of the existence of God and the existence of this invisible purple unicorn – there is no more evidence to support one than the other. So tell me… why, oh why, do you think there’s a difference? Why do you continue to think that atheists are simply followers of another religion?
I know I’ve explained this whole thing multiple times before, and I’m not sure why you keep on repeating the same tired, debunked arguments.
why is it the atheist display that’s an example of douchebaggery but not the religous display?
It’s not attacking anyone else.
As has been pointed-out in an earlier post, that sign did not single-out any specific religion for scorn
Yeah, it just calls all of them dumb. That’s enlightened. I’m sure Pat Robertson would say the same about atheists. And he would be stupid to do so.
Saffi, you can come up with as many examples as you like about religious folk going against the grain of their religion. I never said that all Christians were followers, all the time. I said that the notion of Christianity encourages a follower mentality, which is true. Placing trust and faith in a nonexistent supernatural entity is indicative of a follower mentality. Not eating shellfish because the Bible says you can’t is indicative of a follower mentality. Not working on Sunday because the Bible says you can’t is indicative of a follower mentality. I do, however, apologize for emphasizing Christianity in my original post – all religions are complicit in this behavior, and no religion is more or less ridiculous than any other. Hinduism, Judaism, Mormonism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Christianity are all equally absurd.
Saffi: Actually, by your own definition, knowing it all is exactly what atheists claim. They claim that “All” is a set of one – that is, that the only realm in existence is the natural world. They don’t claim to know everything about the natural world…
Actually, no. You’re wrong. Atheists don’t claim that the only realm in existence is the natural world. They claim that the only realm that we can have understanding and knowledge of is the natural world. An important difference. We don’t purport to know anything other than the natural world. However, theists claim that they have a unique understanding of existence in a way that is untestable by scientific means. Ha. Color me skeptical.
Saffi: On the other hand, according to you, noble atheists seek only Truth? I can name you several officially Atheist movements that were not shy about insisting on the hive mind (in Cambodia, North Korea, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia…).
I never said that all atheists seek only truth. However, only one side of the atheism/theism coin is at ALL interested in considering the scientific evidence at hand, at actually acknowledging truth. I’ll give you one guess as to which side that is.
Hey Oliver – was your karmic deer being a douchebag when he fought back against that hunter in your previous story?
It’s not often I agree with Oliver and I hope my saying so doesn’t marginalize him with his fans. There is a great deal of ignorance regarding the founders, the Constitution, and the separation of church and state. This country was founded on the principles of religious freedom. They were not trying to chase every vestige of religion from public life, they were preventing the establishment of an official religion as a requirement to govern.
The new breed of atheists are rude because they mirror the general attitudes of progressives and liberals, it’s not enough that someone who has a differing opinion is wrong they are evil too.
There was a t shirt produced by a tolerant progressive that said “Retarded Republican babies for Palin” That is the kind of crude obnoxious attitude that characterizes the far left. It’s no surprise to see atheists celebrating an in your face attitude. It’s par for the course.
Wow, people get crazy about the stupidest stuff. Why don’t we just let everybody have their little displays? The Christians can have their little nativity scene, the atheists can have their little poster, the Jews/Muslims/etc. can have their little whatever, and we can all go on with our lives. Charge them each a few bucks to cover the lawsuits for when somebody gets all crazy over nothing.
Oliver, firstly – this has been a fairly respectful thread. I’ll try to keep it that way – but it’s gonna be hard to do.
Atheists don’t CARE what you believe. I know, I’m one and personally I don’t care how many spaghetti monsters you believe in. Have to it.
HOWEVER, in the world today there are WAY THE FU*K too many religious people who think their delusion-de-jour is to BE TAKEN LITERALLY. To be believed TOTALLY and they see it not as a 5,000 year old (amended just 2,000 years ago!) moral guideline but as a STEEL GOALPOST – TOTALLY CORRECT in every way – AND EVEN IF PUTRID – to be believed in TOTAL or you burn in hell, or have to watch hours of Rosie reruns (apparently, you get a choice).
Atheists just want you all to REALIZE your holy shopping lists are merely MYTHS and FABLES – like Aesop’s. For instance – the three blind mice (Jews, Christians and Muslins) ALL believe that the guy they want to LOVE and spend eternity with, “in his loving embrace” – IF YOU BELIEVE HIS OWN BOOK – knowingly murdered almost every man, woman, child and animal on the PLANET because he was pissed off. He was pissed off – his creation was so fu*ked up he decided to KILL – SLAUGHTER his creation.
This is the work of a good guy? An OK guy? A smart enough guy to be able to teach people the error of their ways? A bad guy? A totally evil mass murdering homicidal maniac? I’ll go with the last one.
Once we get you to realize that your “myth” is just that then the WORLD has a chance to have rational discourse with you. Until religious folk realize that their religion is a few good ideas wrapped in a bag of puss and sh*t they won’t UNDERSTAND that PEOPLE are WAY the FU*K more important than religious books and their sophomoric moral goalposts.
Oliver – I bet you anything that you and I could sit down and in two or three hours WE could write a booklet with WAY better MORAL and ETHICAL teachings than any books that the spaghetti monsters have allegedly dictated to the world.
To the Amused Observer I would ask only this: One side has complained about (some could argue “hoped for”)”culture wars” and “wars against religion” for decades when in reality they were the only ones doing any fighting. Why are you so shocked and dismayed when The Other Side, an actual opponent, finally shows up?
This looks like a classic case of “be careful what you wish for…” if you ask me.
Meanwhile I’ve yet to see any concern expressed about the three very real examples I’ve given you that’ve been in the news just over the past few days.
Here’s another question for you, Oliver.
You seem to recognize the ridiculousness of the Cincinnati Zoo teaming-up with that horrendous Creation Museum (unfortunately located in my NKY hometown) because in that thread you typed this:
“Yeah but even though the city is southernish, the people who work at the zoo should know science at least.”
So if you recognize the folly of a zoo pushing this stuff, why all the hostility towards those who recognize the folly of our local, state, and federal governments helping to peddle it?
Oh, I see. You’re a member of the “if it doesn’t precisely mirror Black history, it’s not civil rights” school. Oliver Willis hereby endorses the “Gay marriage isn’t a civil right because Teh Gays never had their own drinking fountains” argument. Shocker.
You want “persecution,” I’ll open with (1) atheist divorcees are routinely denied custody of their children in open court and (2) atheists have come in dead last in “Would you vote for an X for president?” poll for decades ( http://tinyurl.com/2eyhr9 , html link not working). Article VI, section 3 be damned – our kind has had one Congressman in U.S. history, and he’s from Berkeley; how are “blacks, native americans, gays or women” doing on that score? You seem nonplussed – lucky you, you don’t have to worry about it – but it’s unfortunately the case that huge numbers of Americans hate them some atheists, and they ain’t ashamed to say so.
But in fact your swerve into “systematic persecution” is a red herring: the point is the bigotry (and the gall), not the punishment. Whether you think we’re persecuted or not, plenty of us have little interest in taking etiquette tips from members of a majority that, as noted, is slathered in ignorance and bigotry. The point (obscured as it always is by the privilege you enjoy) is that you do not get to tell a despised minority how to deal with our position in society. You don’t get to tell us that we’re too “uppity,” that we should behave like our “eloquent” cousins who “know their place.”
Whether you, from your privileged perch, deign to recognize the injustice we suffer or approve of our behavior is irrelevant. We want to change the system that dehumanizes us, and prior struggles for justice have real lessons to teach to that end. One of those lessons is that being meek and quiet and deferential to bigoted majorities’ smug notions of propriety is no way to get anything done.
Unh-uh. We’re here. We’re openly critical of religion (even allegedly “nice” flavors). Get used to it.
In a word: no. “Faiths” are ideas. Ideas are fair game. Avoiding saying anything that could be construed as “belittling faith” (especially in light of the absurdly overdeveloped sensitivities of the religious) means shoving ourselves back into the closet. And fuck. That.
Religious privilege – the smothering phenomenon that leads even liberals to decide that a billboard reading “Imagine No Religion” is “douchebaggery” – strangles nonbelievers’ humanity. We are what we are. Out and proud.
Meanwhile, atheists do not have such a belief; instead, due to the astounding lack of evidence, they instead conclude that there is no supernatural entity – a logical conclusion.
But that’s just it. You’ve reached a “conclusion”. And because you’ve deemed it the “logical” thing, you jump on the high horse of superiority. Atheists have as much proof that there is no God as I do if I assert that the entire universe comes from Jessica Alba’s bosom.
Again, atheism is not a fucking religion.
At the very least, it is a belief system. It’s a belief in non-belief. If you say okay, well I don’t believe in God/Buddah/Allah whatever but I don’t know what the alternative is you can join me in the wishy-washy agnostic club. But atheists take it to 11 and say without equivocation that there is no God/Buddah/Allah/Alba Bosom.
The burden of proof is on the theist who insists that God DOES exist.
It’s on all of you. Prove God doesn’t exist. Prove he doesn’t. If you can’t then you should quit belittling everyone because you’re all in the same class.
The theists have failed to provide this evidence, and so the only reasonable conclusion is to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Putting “reasonable” in front of someone doesn’t make it so. I honestly don’t understand the arrogance in the current version of atheism, but neither do I get it in the past how many thousands years of Christianity, Judaism, Islamism, etc. Unless you’ve got a scientific proof for this shit, quit acting as if it’s as of the same scientific rigor of e=mc2. It’s all a bullshit belief/non-belief system and using the language of science with it is an insult to actual science (which is the same way I feel about bullshit intelligent design).
Why do you continue to think that atheists are simply followers of another religion?
Because you are asserting the unprovable.
I said that the notion of Christianity encourages a follower mentality, which is true.
So does everything else. Every industry/group has leaders and followers to some extent. Within Christianity there are varying degrees of following the leader, from the Catholic church to the UCC. Again, I don’t see how you’re so upset about people painting atheists with a broad stroke and then you (and others) do the same thing right back to believers.
was your karmic deer being a douchebag when he fought back against that hunter in your previous story
No, he was fulfilling karma which is something atheists don’t believe in I guess because its not “reasonable” or “rational” or whatever science-wannabe word we’re going to use.
Atheists just want you all to REALIZE your holy shopping lists are merely MYTHS and FABLES – like Aesop’s.
Because they and only they have the TRUTH, right? Come on. Here’s the deal: If someone wants to believe that My Little Pony is the key to life the Universe and everything, so long as they keep it out of our government and schools – what’s the harm? That is, people are allowed to believe whatever the hell stupid shit they want to believe if they don’t use it against other people. Why can’t you be happy with that? Why, if you don’t believe in My Little Pony do you have to yell at me for it? I’ve got no right to yell at you and convert you to Ponydom, so it isn’t cool the other way around either.
why all the hostility towards those who recognize the folly of our local, state, and federal governments helping to peddle it?
a) I have no problem with people being hostile to government enshrinement of religion. I’m one of those people because I actually believe what the constitution says (Amused Observer, this means you).
b) But this stuff is not narrowcasted to the government powers that be. New atheism uses a cannon when a laser would suffice, and instead of condemning the chowderheads in positions of power misusing their religious beliefs they aim at anyone who is in religion and masks it under the dialogue of science to be dogmatic.
Look folks the reason I come out so harshly against this stuff is that atheists more often than not come down on my side of the aisle. I have far more in common with their beliefs than I do with the religious. But I think that the fundamentalist tactics being used in the rhetoric are just a big-ass turnoff and don’t get atheists or anybody else anywhere. I see people who are otherwise smarter making the same sort of sweeping generalizations they usually hate. For them, because George Bush and Jerry Falwell did something it implicates all Christians. And it just isn’t true. No more so than when Christians say all Muslims are terrorists.
Rieux,
I’m honestly going to ignore most of what you wrote because its mostly self-righteous nonsense. You point to one or two instances of atheists not getting a fair share and you want to compare it to something like the struggle of gays to have civil rights. That just makes no sense.
As far as atheist pols go, there’s no law against an atheist running for office – as there was with the poor, female, and minority. Oh sure, its a detriment to gaining office, but until this year we didn’t have any black presidents either.
Oliver Willis hereby endorses the “Gay marriage isn’t a civil right because Teh Gays never had their own drinking fountains” argument.
Yeah, I’m totally against gay marriage.
“Not getting a fair share”? Published case after published case of nonbelievers being denied custody of their children represents “not getting a fair share”?!?
As I said: Ignorance. Bigotry. You respond to these concerns in this way and then expect us to take your advice seriously?
In fact, there are many such laws. But I guess you wouldn’t know that.
Yeah, I totally claimed you were. Instead of, you know, pointing out the rank hypocrisy of pulling out the Injustice Olympics when it suits your purposes but ignoring it when it doesn’t.
Again, you’re just totally evading the central point. Despite the sensitivities that you’ve absorbed from the religious-privilege-suffused society you live in, many of us have no intention of taking this country’s anti-atheist bigotry lying down. History makes it very clear that the meek, closeted course you advocate has no chance of lessening the grip of religious privilege on the world we live in. You’re welcome to respond to that perspective if you’d like.
Oh, and by the way:
Sorry, but you simply don’t know what “atheism” means.
Have I mentioned how relevant ignorance is to this whole issue? Such as, fundamental ignorance about basic facts regarding the very people you are attacking?
Honestly, Oliver, I don’t know that you ever paid attention in science class. Asking me to prove there is no God is the same as if you were asking me to prove that there is no invisible purple unicorn living in your dishwasher. Asking me to prove there is no God is the same as asking me to prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. Asking me to prove there is no God is asking me to prove there is no Bigfoot, Yeti, Abominable Snowman, leprechauns, unicorns, Loch Ness Monster, Ogopogo, mermaids, aliens, or poltergeists.
In other words, you want me to do something that is impossible.
Now, just because it is impossible for me to “prove” there is no God, doesn’t mean that we should automatically conclude there IS a God. Just like you shouldn’t believe in leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, or the Loch Ness Monster. In other words, just because something CAN exist doesn’t mean that you should believe it does.
I tell you that there is an invisible purple unicorn living in your dishwasher. I offer no proof of this, only tell you that you should accept it on faith. You, rightly, think I am a kook, and that clearly there is no unicorn in your dishwasher. However, you cannot prove that there ISN’T an invisible purple unicorn in there. According to your statements, you couldn’t assert, “No, there’s no fucking invisible unicorn in my dishwasher, you fucking nutjob.” No, instead you have to say, “Well, I can’t prove you wrong, so your view that there is an invisible unicorn living in my dishwasher must be equally valid as my opinion that there is not.”
Do you see now? Please tell me that you get it. I don’t know how someone, so ordinarily reasonable, can fail so terribly at thinking this through. Just be graceful and admit you were wrong.
Can I get someone to back me up on my scientific reasoning here? I’m doing the best I can to explain this concept but it appears that I am struggling to get the point across.
Yeah I can’t quite believe this still hasn’t sunk in yet.
Atheism is the belief in no gods.
Atheism is *NOT* the belief there is no god.
There is a HHUUGGEE difference. Please learn it.
From Rieux’s link:
“But isn’t it impossible to prove the nonexistence of something?”
There are many counterexamples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.
However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counterexample.
If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn’t there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don’t exist.
Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don’t believe in unicorns, even though they can’t conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.
To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn’t exist anywhere. So the skeptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.
In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that counterarguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really applicable.
How in the world would you prove that no God described by earthly religion exists?
How in the world is believing no God exists close in practice to believing no God described by religion exists? There are literally an infinite number of Gods in which one could believe, and there is a very finite number of Gods described by religion. Please explain.
And by the way, OW can go look in his dishwasher to verify the information. Bad example.
No, no, Parthenon, the purple unicorn that lives in Oliver’s dishwasher is invisible. Oliver can’t see it. Also, it’s very small in size, doesn’t eat anything, and does not make itself known to anyone through their five senses. BUT I KNOW IT’S THERE! And anyone who says differently is a douchebag, insulting me on a very personal level.
I’m mostly with you re: your questions in your first post. I copied and pasted that passage because the central point was the impracticality (and virtual impossibility) of proving that God doesn’t exist anywhere, in any corner of the universe. The author clearly (and correctly) makes the point that the proper scientific default position is disbelief in God. However, I don’t know how you’d prove that no God described by Earthly religion exists – methinks the author overstepped his bounds a bit there.
(I should note that I was not the author of any of the material from that last post – it was all pasted from Rieux’s link. I don’t know html, sorry…)
Oh Allah, here we go again. Atheism is not another form of faith. Not by a longshot. I don’t _believe_ there is no God, I simply am not convinced there is one given the evidence I’ve come across (which includes having read the Hebrew Testament, the Christian Testament, and the Koran in their entirety, albeit in English translations).
Let’s take “belief” to mean thinking something is there, but knowing that you can’t give a full, 100% accounting for its presence (Catholics like to call it “mystery.”) A Christian believes in God and Jesus being his son, but he can only give partial evidence as to this. Muslims believe Allah was the one true God and Mohammed was his prophet, but can only give partial evidence, etc.
Atheism — a-theism — is a rejection of received belief systems. There’s a huge difference between saying/thinking “I believe there is no God” and “Given the evidence and my personal experience, there is no God. Godzilla isn’t hiding in my bathroom, either, because I don’t hear any Godzilla-noises and my apartment building isn’t shaking.” An agnostic might say, “Well look, maybe if I hear those Godzilla noises a few times I’ll believe Godzilla has indeed taken over my bathroom.” An atheist simply decides not to play the game.
And as mentioned O-dub, you’re an atheist yourself if you aren’t making blood sacrifices to Mithras every day, or having wine-fueled sex parties every month to worship Dionysus.
This took forever to write so I’m probably way behind, but whatever.
And before I start, let me just say, Oliver – I love you.
Anyway.
mambochicken23: Saffi, you can come up with as many examples as you like about religious folk going against the grain of their religion. I never said that all Christians were followers, all the time. I said that the notion of Christianity encourages a follower mentality, which is true.
And yet I came up with all those examples. Actually, in the first sentence you’re getting it wrong. I didn’t say they were going against the grain of their religion. That’s what YOU said, because you’ve pre-decided that any rejection of a follower mentality is equal to a rejection of religion. I said they were rejecting a follower mentality because they were inspired to do so by their religion. It’s the complete opposite.
Also: “You can come up with as many examples as you like…” (with the unsaid implication: I’m still wrong.) Who’s being “unscientific” here? You don’t offer any counter examples, any data, but you discount all of my counter evidence because you know ahead of time what the answer is? That’s the very definition of dogmatic.
Placing trust and faith in a nonexistent supernatural entity is indicative of a follower mentality.
Objection! You’re basing your argument on it’s own conclusion!
Not eating shellfish because the Bible says you can’t is indicative of a follower mentality.
No, not eating shellfish because the Bible says you can’t is indicative of a cultural response to a loss of a geographic homeland. In order to maintain a sense of community, people chose to accept rules (“The Law”) that even in Diaspora would define them as a distinct group. Think of the Irish and their St. Paddy’s Day parades around the world, but define your group in religious terms instead of ethnic ones. (The parades are named after a saint, but I don’t consider them religious events except the Church of Beer.)
Not working on Sunday because the Bible says you can’t is indicative of a follower mentality.
I wish you’d tell my boss about that rule – I have to work on Sundays all the time.
I do, however, apologize for emphasizing Christianity in my original post – all religions are complicit in this behavior, and no religion is more or less ridiculous than any other. Hinduism, Judaism, Mormonism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Christianity are all equally absurd.
Actually, I find no fault with this statement. I fully accept your right to believe the religions you’ve named are all absurd. I just reject the arguments you’ve been making for it.
Saffi: Actually, by your own definition, knowing it all is exactly what atheists claim. They claim that “All” is a set of one – that is, that the only realm in existence is the natural world. They don’t claim to know everything about the natural world…
Actually, no. You’re wrong. Atheists don’t claim that the only realm in existence is the natural world. They claim that the only realm that we can have understanding and knowledge of is the natural world. An important difference. We don’t purport to know anything other than the natural world. However, theists claim that they have a unique understanding of existence in a way that is untestable by scientific means. Ha. Color me skeptical.
Color ME skeptical when you say we all claim to have a “unique” understanding of existence. I know I don’t. I just prefer to explore more than one system of thought.
And as far as purporting to “know” about anything other than the natural world, well, not to be Clintonian about it, but that depends on the meaning of “know”. Do you mean, reach a testable conclusion based on observable evidence? Well, then I make no special claims there. Do you mean “know” as in reach a logical conclusion about the outcome of a set of principles that I’m still trying to figure out a mere definition for? I’ll let you know when I get there.
Consider: According to the laws of mathmatics and all experience, the sum of the sides of a triangle must equal 180 degrees. You’re bound within the structure of plane geometry to that undeniable axiom, and there’s a whole list of other immovable axioms just like it. That’s what I mean by a logical box. But what if you change the underlying axioms? What if you say, straight lines don’t have to lie on a plane, two-dimentional figures can curve in on themselves, and a triangle can have 270 degrees. It doesn’t make sense based on our own observations, but if you accept the change of rules you can also consider a whole world of non-Euclidean geometry.
THAT, to me, is the difference between superstition and theology.
Saffi: On the other hand, according to you, noble atheists seek only Truth? I can name you several officially Atheist movements that were not shy about insisting on the hive mind (in Cambodia, North Korea, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia…).
I never said that all atheists seek only truth.
You got me there – I misplaced the ‘only’. What I meant to say was, “according to you, only noble atheists seek Truth.” And you do say that, you know. Quote: “One of the two groups is acting nobly, and the other not.” Quote: “Only onhe side of the atheism/theism coin is at all interested in …actually acknowledging truth.” Nice generalizations there.
In the earlier post, you talked about Christians (or Hindus or Shintoists…) defining themselves as believing something, and that they believed that anyone who didn’t believe what they believed were wrong about that belief. Um, yeah. That’s almost a pure tautology – what is it meant to prove? Define a group on the basis of a shared belief, and state that anyone outside the group (i.e., people who disagree with them) are wrong about what they disagree about… I’m getting a headache.
Next part is where it starts getting clearer:
I would like to point out that there is no good, logical, reasonable, scientific reason to believe in any one religion more than any other.
Finally an actual argument. I’ll agree that there is no scientific reason to favor one religion over another, just as there is no aesthetic reason to favor one arithmatic answer over another. You’re using inappropriate standards on systems where I agree with you that they don’t apply, and then using their inapplicability as evidence for the failure of the that system.
However, I WILL disagree with you when you say there is no ‘good’ reason to believe in any one over another. Unfortunately, it’s taken a lifetime of reflection for me to get anywhere near to figuring this one out, so I doubt either one of us has the time or patience for me to spell out what I’ve come up with so far.
However, only one side of the atheism/theism coin is at ALL interested in considering the scientific evidence at hand, at actually acknowledging truth. I’ll give you one guess as to which side that is.
Well, I’m interested in considering the scientific evidence at hand when dealing with the natural world, and what’s more I try to only use the scientific evidence at hand when making conclusions about the natural world, and I even change my opinions when the evidence of the natural world indicates that I should, so I guess that the only side actually “acknowledging truth” is mine, the religious one.
Or not. (See how easy it is to respect one anther?)
I’ll return to the earlier post:
Bottom line, and a key difference between the two groups: Religious … people encourage (either explicitly or implicitly) a follower mentality.
The elipsis is something you’ve already withdrawn, but as for the rest, I’m still waiting for something other than argument by assertion, especially an assertion which I’ve already shot down by numerous examples.
They encourage people to NOT think for themselves, but instead put trust in this omnipotent father figure in the sky.
There you go invoking the Great Straw Man in the Sky again. I suppose if you’re arguing with a four year old it has some validity.
Meanwhile, atheists are out there, trying to make people think logically about religion,
Meanwhile, religionists are out there, trying to make people think logically about religion… Hey! I can play the assertion game, too!
trying to get people to think FOR THEMSELVES.
Again with the denial that the religious impulse can inspire individual behavior.
One of the two groups is acting nobly, and the other not. Do you need to ask which one is which?
Aaaaaaaaaaand, then, you top off the argument with something I have to strain not to be insulted by. Do you wonder why Oliver even started this conversation?
Here’s the thing. What I object to is not your atheism, but your open denial of my ability to think rationally. Trust me, I can, and I’m also able to recognize the difference between when I use pure rationality, and when I put that set of rules aside and choose to work out of a different logical box with rules that are just as internally consistent.
You may have noticed that I like arguing these kind of fine points. But argument is no fun when one side routinely engages in sweeping generalizations, circular reasoning and nasty assertions about the other side’s lack of nobility or interest in truth. Argument without mutual respect is just bickering.
And nothing is more of a drag than bickering over the Internet at… Oh, my God*, it’s 4:30 AM.
*no pun intended
And this is why i avoid talking about religion with my friends.
It gets out of hand.
Truth be told. Some athiest are pricks and some christians are too.
“‘You’re all a bunch of idiots!’ or anything.”
“The sign almost explicitly says that.”
First of all, fuck off, you god damn liar. The sign says nothing of the sort.
Secondly, it should say that. I’m sick and tired of treated stupid beliefs as valid just because someone calls it a religion.
If someone believed exactly what the Christians believe, but instead of saying his god told him, his teddy bear told him, we would lock him up.
But no, say you god said gays are evil, and not only are we supposed to nod politely, but you get a tax-free status. And god forbid someone say, “You are wrong.” lest they be accused of being intolerant.
“The sign almost explicitly says that. It’s the equivalent of the Christian sign saying ‘Silly Jews, you don’t believe in Christ. You’re clearly going to hell.’”
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
On the one hand we have people saying, “Jews deserve to be tortured for all of eternity.”
On the other hand we have people saying, “You are wrong and when you die nothing happens.”
Yet you think they are the same.
Get your fucking head out of your ass when it comes to religion, or stop talking about it, because it is killing your credibility.
Thanks for helping Oliver make his point, Trollbridge. Jeez. Maybe we atheists ARE all douchebags…
I know athiest who aren’t enormous pricks.
Bridge just doesn’t know how to respct the view of others.
Like a true American.
Saffi,
To keep it short and sweet, I second that post:)
I’m late to the party, and don’t see any point in banging my head against a wall.
I just wanted to say to Saffi: Word.
People are holding a gun to your head and forcing you to listen to Xmas music?
At work? Pretty much, yeah.
Why do you continue to think that atheists are simply followers of another religion?
Because you are asserting the unprovable.
Quite the contrary. I believe it is the theists who are asserting the unprovable.
people are allowed to believe whatever the hell stupid shit they want to believe if they don’t use it against other people. Why can’t you be happy with that?
Except they don’t.
So the skeptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
And the majority of skeptical atheists would admit being wrong if proven so.
“God is an absentee landlord!” – Al Pacino
Personally, I would love to see Jesus come back and tell everybody they got it all. Wrong.
“Oh man, that ‘drink this, it’s my blood? Eat this,it’s my body’ stuff? That was a metaphor! Plus, we were wasted.”
It would be funny if everytime you said Jesus he came back and cursed you out.
Sorry, but you’re way off base in this entire thread.
Several points:
- This is a pretty tame display. You’re really comparing grapes and grapefruits here: a tiny minority with a tiny sign (yes, and a handful of books written by congenital blowhards like Hitchens and Dawkins) compared to a mass culture that revolves around the birth of Christ for one-twelfth of every year (and growing).
- While comparisons with black/white segregation don’t match up very well, the dynamic of hegemony is still driving the religion debate. Christians flood the airwaves, work to legislate their scriptural beliefs, insert themselves into elementary education, and cry foul whenever they don’t get to assert their dominance.
- Atheism is not a religion. It is the rejection a set of questions/answers/ideas that dominates social organization and discourse. It is the default position, logically prior to the advent of religious belief.
- Generally, I find all people who feel the need to put up displays in public places are obnoxious in one form or another. The only reason the manger is overtly inoffensive is because everyone already knows the story of Christ. If Christianity were as poorly represented as atheism in the U.S., the display would have to explain that Christ was born and died to redeem humanity of its sins. Thus, it would call us all sinners. Which would be overtly offensive. To those of us who do not believe the Christ story, we are reminded of the assertion of our sinfulness and lack of hope for redemption every time we see Christian religious symbols. That’s what makes them symbols; they stand for something more: in this case, Christ the redeemer as the only true path to salvation. I find that offensive, thank you very much. I’ve learned to deal with the constant barrage of religious symbols, and I do not suffer to the same degree as blacks did in the segregated south, but I would be much more comfortable (read: not offended) if I were not forced to condition myself to accept that this is merely the way of the world.
I’ve followed this thread all the way through. You guys are all smarter than me, and better writers, too. (Except AO, him…not so much).
But here’s my two cents: When calling someone a “good Christian” ceases to be considered a compliment, and calling someone an “atheist” ceases to be considered an insult, I’ll worry about the feelings of the faithful. Until then, if they want to proselytize, then the atheists can, too, in whatever terms they want to use, as far as I’m concerned.
mambochicken: There is an invisible purple unicorn in your dishwasher.
Oliver: No, there is not.
mc: Yes there is. I believe in it. He makes your dishes sparkle.
OW: what about the soap I put in?
mc: The soap is merely a catalyst for the unicorn’s sparkly goodness.
OW: Okay, prove it.
mc: Don’t have to. I have faith he exists. Prove he doesn’t.
OW: Whaaa? I can’t do that.
mc: AHA! Therefore he must. I win!
OW: Don’t be an idiot.
MC: Oppressor! Why are you such a douchebag?
Not eating shellfish because the Bible says you can’t is indicative of a follower mentality.
No, not eating shellfish because the Bible says you can’t is indicative of a cultural response to a loss of a geographic homeland.
I thought it was so you didn’t get hepatitis and die.
I want to transcribe what the sign in question actually said. “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” I just don’t see how this is being construed as some kind of personal attack- it’s a simple statement of belief.
Christians look at the nativity scene and get a warm fuzzy. They look at the atheist statement and feel, wrongly, that it is a personal attack. Personally, I look at the atheist display and get a warm fuzzy. I look at the nativity scene and I feel, wrongly, that it is a personal attack. I don’t see how this is anything but a perfectly fair trade. Ideally we would keep both these displays off government property, but if one is fine then so must be the other. And I don’t see anything douchebaggy about that.
But the rules that seem to apply are:
Simple expression of Christian belief = perfectly fine.
Simple expression of Atheist belief = worse than a Robertson/Falwell sandwich.
I think the problem is this: the atheist’s belief is “the theists are wrong”. There’s simply no way to express this, no matter how polite or contrite you are, without seeming to attack the faith of others. Atheists are then left with a choice. A) they can shut up about their deeply held personal convictions for the rest of their lives and grind their teeth at the freedom denied them but enjoyed by everyone around them. Or B) They can freely, civilly express their convictions, just like all the religious folk, and simply have to live with Oliver Willis incorrectly thinking they’re douchebags. Personally, I think B is the better option. Though it does sting. Where else on the intertubes can I get my fix of liberalism, comics and Alba in one easy stop?
Bridge just doesn’t know how to respct the view of others.
Like a true American.
Too bad he’s Canadian.
I don’t know any athiests.
Anyone who answers the question, “How did this universe get here?” with any answer at all is not an athiest.
“Anyone who answers the question, “How did this universe get here?” with any answer at all is not an athiest.”
My answer: where else would it be?
Really???
Wow he should consider moving. He would be loved.
Who knew Canadians could be so mean.
Saffi, that’s a long post. Let me just make a couple of brief points in response. This is not to concede all the smaller points you made, but I do not the time to answer everything.
1) I think that you are much, much more reflective than the average theist. Kudos to you.
2) I don’t buy into your geometry example. Sure, if you change the rules of mathematics, you can have a triangle with 270 degrees. Theists not only claim that the rules are not what they seem (i.e., the natural world is not all there is), but also that they know how the rules are different. They claim to know the true nature of existence, and that it comprises elements other than which they are capable of actually observing. Meanwhile, I, as an atheist, is asserting that there is no invisible purple unicorn in Oliver’s dishwasher. Someone is gonna have to supply some evidence for it before I change my mind.
3) I’m glad that you allow scientific evidence to shape your view of the natural world around you. I can see that you’re taking my points fairly personally – let me assure you, I do not claim that every atheist is more reasonable or logical than every theist. Instead, what I claim, is that the two populations are different – that on balance, atheists are more logical than theists, because they (by definition) have one less irrational belief.
4) You can claim that your personal reflection has led you to become a Christian. However, you cannot claim that your odds of being correct are any greater than a Hindu, a Jew, a Pastafarian, or a Zoroastrianist. Not to mention the ancient believers in the Greek and Roman gods, or believers in Ra, etc. There is no evidence to support one over the others. None. And all the personal reflection in the world isn’t going to change that.
To me, that is a core reason for rejecting religion in total. There are an infinite number of gods that one might worship. There are an infinite number of religions. Each earthly religion is claiming to actually know the reality of the non-natural world. No evidence, no proof, simply faith. And they all are almost certainly wrong. I could “create” a supernatural entity right now that is just as likely to exist as the Christian God (and I did – the invisible purple unicorn in Oliver’s dishwasher). This is the idea behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster – while it seems silly, it is no more silly than the idea of the God of the Bible.
If you chose a religion based on the social tenets it espouses (which is what I think you must be getting at, talking of self-reflection), that’s an entirely different matter than whether the founding, theological principles are in fact true.
Quaker, let me introduce myself. My name is Dave, and I’m your first atheist.
Your question could mean two things – 1) How did the universe come into existence in the first place, and 2) How did the universe, once here, shape up the way it did? I assume you meant the former, but just to be safe, I’ll answer both.
1) Answer: I have no freaking clue. Big Bang theory and all that, but no one really knows the preconditions for the origins of the universe.
2) Physics.
I liken this question a lot to the questions of the origins and diversity of life on Earth. The origins of life are murky, and no one really knows what the hell happened. However, once life existed, we know how such great biodiversity sprang up – evolution by natural selection.
As a card carrying Heathen (one whose beliefs are different from those who possess the real true faith) the whole Christmas in your face stuff can get very tiring. I am constantly reminded that the USA is a Christians nation (such bullshit) and that we were founded on a Judeo/Christian beliefs (also bullshit).
How in Christ name can consumerism be linked to the teachings of Jesus? Consumerism is the anti-Christ.
Religion is personal, leave it that way, do not force feed me your beliefs.
The push back is due to the past 50 years: since Congress added “In God We Trust” and “One Nation Under God” to the money and the pledge of allegiance, of encroaching FAITH into our political system.
There is no place for religious doctrine in our government. If you were subjected to non-Christian beliefs as government policy you would find it offensive.
Our founding fathers were very familiar with the downfall of governments when they sided with one belief system over another.
Neutrality works for the Internet as well as government.
That group has been putting up billboards, etc. around Seattle. And nobody really cared. Out in the ‘burbs, they flipped but in the actual city, it took us weeks and weeks to even take notice.
And…
http://www.eyesonfox.org/?p=436
Atheists making fun of theists is no worse than what you do every day when you make fun of Republicans. For example, “Fred Barnes Couldn’t Find A Way Out His Ass If You Gave Him A Flashlight And A Map.” Or calling Fred Thompson a drama queen. (For the record, I agree with both sentiments.)
When someone makes fun of beliefs you share, you call them douchebags. When you make fun of beliefs you disagree with, you’re just being a good blogger. I don’t get it.
um…. yet another example of me coming here because the vast majority of posts are well worth reading, as compared to the few really (really) silly ones, imho.
maybe there’s something wrong with my PC? i clicked on the link more than 3 or 4 times only to see the “imagine no religion” billboard and read a few lines about “beware of dogma” and the like. where’s the big bad atheist calling people stoopid? i missed it. seems to me that this whole post proves the “new atheist” point that religion is a non-starter for most everyone, even the agnostic. you can’t have a rational discussion about it because the conversation will inevitably reduce to name-calling which this one does as well.
and where is the example of the “new atheists” acting like Robertson and Falwell. puhlease. come on guys, try to think rationally about religion here without getting insulted. and, by the way, who’s the douche? only one i can think of might be Hitchens just because he is so dramatic and will lower himself to insulting the believers. but Harris? Dawkins? Amazing Randi? Who’s a douche? watch them on YouTube. they are exasperatingly rational and avoid personal insults like the plague. now, if you want to turn a rational question about the believability of an idea into a personal insult…. because, well, you don’t agree with the rational question, or that it SHOULD EVEN BE ASKED — because of the reverance accorded to religion… then, i’m sorry, you’re going to think a lot of people are douches who are not. i think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about atheists because folks are turning off their ears and brains when they are told an atheist is speaking. EVEN Dawkins, arch-enemy of believers, apparently, says on a scale of 1-7, 7 being sure there is no god, he is a 6 or a 6.5. he calls himself an atheist, but he has an open mind for evidence.
take a breath, folks. maybe actually, you know, TRY to imagine no religion. it’s easy if you try. and by the way, it’s not like we have no models for this. the more atheistic countries in Europe all have better health care, better quality of life. you know, all that rational stuff….
If someone believed exactly what the Christians believe, but instead of saying his god told him, his teddy bear told him, we would lock him up.
Actually, the teddy bear hypothesis is a lot more reasonable – at least the teddy bear can be shown to exist!
It’s not attacking anyone else.
Except that the sign is not “attacking” anyone. It is flatly stating what atheists believe, and it is the height of privilege to call that an “attack.”
It’s no different than when someone calls two men holding hands “flaunting their gay lifestyle.” It is impossible for an atheist to state his or her beliefs (“there is no god, and all religions are false”) without it being called an “attack,” but this is just a made-up bullshit phrase used to quiet expression the speaker doesn’t approve of.
Why aren’t you calling the nativity scene an attack on atheists’ belief that god isn’t real? Oh, right, it’s only an attack when atheists do it.
And also, it can’t be stressed enough that the atheist sign was only put up in response to theists who just couldn’t keep their religion to themselves. But THOSE people aren’t douchebags, heavens no!
I feel very confident that the atheist group would be more than happy to take down its sign, provided that the theists did likewise. But, you know, fat chance of getting the folks who put up the nativity to do that.
I’m also a big fan of your writing, Oliver, but you’re just wrong on this one. If you’d restricted your douchebag-assertions to ONLY that guy interviewed in the video…well, I could be convinced of that (never seen him before, but he does come across as a bit dickish). But you didn’t, you widened your scope to all kinds of “new” atheism, including the (very inoffensive and strictly-as-a-reaction-to-nativity) sign.
On the plus side, I got to learn what an Ogopogo is from this thread. Silver lining!
I like the term Zoroastronaut, myself.
L. Ron Hubbard told his brother “I’m gonna start a religion. That’s where the money is.”
So we have Scientology, a belief system that is laughable in it’s mythology, but no where so much different than Joseph Smith’s story. Smith was a convicted scam artist.
So are they true religions, or not?
The fact that you make no room or mention of the fact that athiests are the minority in this equation is just bizarre. It is not about what’s on the sign. It’s about the presence of the sign.
1 I have grown tired of the wankery that surrounds a lot of atheist advocacy, the endless godwins law like circle jerks about non-belief versus belief in non-existence of god(s). Thrusts don’t care and they are the ones whose prejudices we should be overcoming.
2 the laws against atheists serving in public office have been struck down. Period.
3 prejudice against atheists in custody proceedings is pretty rare; more common is a decision to continue what the children already learned and are accustomed to.
4 If you want to persuade people to your view, then don’t convey by implication that your reader or interlocutor is a fucking moron. I don’t like the word atheist because too many self described atheists are poorly educated assholes, and I don’t want to share a label with them. They don’t own me; fuck their noise.
Capitol officials now say they’ll honor virtually any request for a religious or political display. As long as it’s not disruptive, costs taxpayers nothing and is not seen as the state endorsing any viewpoint, “it’s pretty much wide open,” said Steve Valandra, spokesman for General Administration, the state agency that issues the permits. “It’s free expression.” This year, the only applications for displays were for the Nativity scene and the atheist sign. Both will remain up until Dec. 29.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/olympia/archive.asp?postID=8839
No matter what the religious or anti religious advertisement is meant to convey, they all pretty much say “my beliefs are better than your beliefs”. That is, after all, the substance of all advertising.
I don’t really think there should be state provided free advertising space for any group. I know they call it celebration and holiday, but come on, I recognize advertising when I see it. Criminy.
LET’S BREAK THIS DOWN:
1.] Capitol officials say they’ll honor virtually any request for a religious or political display.
2.] The only applications for displays were for the Nativity scene and the atheist sign.
3.] Bill O’Reilly & Oliver Willis are upset about the atheist sign but not the Nativity scene.
Oliver? Oliver?…
*crickets*
Hello? Bueller?…
*tumbleweed*
OW, your commenting system leaves much to be desired. I would have greatly enjoyed being part of this discussion, but was in moderation limbo.
Everybody is a douchebag. Even Jesus.
For some of us atheists, those who would be excluded from our families, make our mothers cry, lose our jobs, etc etc, we support such displays and confrontational actions and rudeness on the anonymous intertubes as our only way to express our frustration.
Yeah, I’m still here, still unconvinced. You are putting something made of belief in the cloak of science and it doesn’t fit.
The nativity scene isn’t lecturing anyone that their beliefs are a myth. If your entire system is about debunking everyone else’s – and done with a caustic tone – you can probably expect to get slammed. The difference is when science debunks religion it does so with evidence, not just heated rhetoric.
C.S.S: Namecalling doesn’t do anything to help your argument, and that’s all you did. I see atheist assholism as a problem as I do religious fundamentalism and I’ll write about it until the cows come home.
My commenting system requires you to have a comment approved before you can jump in. I do so because I get a lot of spam and jackasses. It will remain as is. Once you have posted, you will be able to post at will.
I don’t know if it’s worth jumping in a this late point. I can’t seem to post from work.
Saffi: Thee speaks my mind, friend.
Thess: If they had left off the last sentence – “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” I doubt very much that OW would have objected. Was that little dig there at the end really necessary to convey the atheist view point? Stating categorically that religion “hardens hearts and enslaves minds” seems meant to intentionally generate controversy and discomfort. If the purpose of the sign is to generate discomfort then yeah, OW is right and the guy is a jerk. If he just wants his POV out there for consideration, he should leave out the last line next time.
pickabone: It seems to me you’re picking nits. You may feel that the creche screams “sinner!” but that is not what is on the mind of most Christians at this time of year. If I were wont to worry about such things, I might be more intimidated by the Easter bunny.
On the whole, I tend to agree with whomever opined that government should really just get out of the business of public advertising of private beliefs all together. (it may have been Parthenon, I’ve lost track).
S. Quaker, I think everybody ought to have their little displays and we all need to turn down our offense-o-meters about nine notches. But ‘nothing’ would be my second choice to ‘all.’
In other words, I wish that when we came into contact with the beliefs of another person, we could say, ‘That’s kind of interesting to hear about, good for you. At least you’re thinking about these big questions and not just reading celebrity magazines all day.’
When did OW start spouting creationist BS when it comes to atheism? It doesn’t require faith to believe in nothing. It only requires a lack of faith. No serious theologian would ever compare atheism to a religion, only Right wing hacks do that.
And seriously, where would America be if Sam Adams had decided that hyperbole was uncalled for? If MLK had decided that decency was less important than civility? If FDR had decided that tradition was more important sound economic science? Where would Christianity be if Jesus had decided that obedience to religious authority was more important than loving your fellow man and standing up to injustice?
Really, thats what you’re talking about here. You’re telling an oppressed minority that they have no right to be angry that people treat them like shit. You don’t have the right. You can level any criticism you want at black folks. Those are your people. When you level that criticism at atheists when you have such an obvious hatred and revulsion of them, then you’re no better than William Kristol Circa 1960.
1) Answer: I have no freaking clue.
That’s not athiesm, is it? That’s more like I-don’t-much-think-about-it-ism.
I liken this question a lot to the questions of the origins and diversity of life on Earth.
MC, I liken my question to these:
1) What is consciousness?
2) What did Descartes mean when he said “I think, therefore I am”? Was he mistaken?
Or maybe this one:
Is there order in the universe? Why or why not?
It doesn’t require faith to believe in nothing.
Yet I would argue it requires faith to assert in absolute nothingness absent scientific evidence.
You’re telling an oppressed minority that they have no right to be angry that people treat them like shit.
No, I’m saying a minority – and atheists are far from “oppressed” – has no right to attack people who aren’t attacking them. To stretch your analogy that would be as if black activists in the ’50s and ’60s attacked all whites because most of the oppressors were white, while white support was integral to the eventual success of the civil rights movement.
Yeah, because nobody has ever been beaten or chased from a community for rumors that they are atheists. I don’t have to hide my beliefs from my students, colleagues and administrators, even though I teach in a field that has nothing to do with teaching religion, and I don’t discuss atheism in my science class. All because we don’t believe and aren’t afraid to say it aloud.
We are discriminated against, and now that we push back, we are told to be quiet? The trans-community is facing the same kind of pushback from the LGB(little)T movement. I can only imagine how quickly my job would disappear if I were transgendered in any way.
Wasn’t it said by a repub with great astonishment that gays haven’t suffered enough to deserve protection? Et tu, ODub?
——
Thanks for explaining your commenting system. It was very frustrating last night, very hard to delurk.
This has been an entertaining thread.
The POWER of these threads is NOT to convince anyone of anything. Ain’t going to happen. The POWER of these threads is that people LOOKING will be exposed to different sides of the issue. Up till recently anyone “searching” never had the opportunity to have the “atheist” argument presented in any way – let alone as articulately as has been done in this thread – for example. If you’ll notice there was not even ONE attempt to refute any of the REASONS why CHRISTIANITY is silly nonsense that were presented in this thread.
Fortunately, I’ve never seen a thread like this that wasn’t vastly more powerful for the atheist side, this one included.
LONG before I was an “atheist” I was a “Christian Atheist” as you actually have to be stupid to not conclude that the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim stream of religious philosophy is a silly, even childishly incompetent, pile of primitive ignorance – laced with a few worthwhile, but frequently contradicted good thoughts.
Religion is is the merge of: “The world is flat? Why did the river just flood our crops?” (scientific inquiry) with an attempt to say that “maybe we shouldn’t kill people without a reasonably good reason.” (morals). IF you are seriously interested in either Science or Morals – study them you’ll find them both wonderful pursuits, and that neither of them have anything to do with flying spaghetti monsters.
Oliver, you’re hopeless. What about the unicorn, OW? What about the unicorn? Why should you have less respect for my belief in a dishwasher-resident invisible unicorn than for Christians’ belief in a omnipotent deity? Or do you really, really want to take the position that anything that is POSSIBLE is also REASONABLE?
I am a research scientist, OW. I understand scientific method. As of now, the lack of evidence for the existence of God must lead any scientific-minded person to conclude that there is no God. Once evidence is presented for God’s existence, then I will revisit my understanding. Until that point, there’s no reason to believe in God.
Christ, read something by Dawkins already.
If you’ll notice there was not even ONE attempt to refute any of the REASONS why CHRISTIANITY is silly nonsense that were presented in this thread.
um, did you miss Saffi’s posts? And the thread itself is about the tone and attitude of the messenger, rather than about the validity of the message.
Me: Answer: I have no freaking clue [about the origin of the universe].
Quaker: That’s not athiesm, is it? That’s more like I-don’t-much-think-about-it-ism.
No, Quaker. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to make a claim about the origins of the universe, because the knowledge regarding said origins is murky at best. Just like the origins of life. Anyone who tells you that they know, or even that they believe they know, about the origins of either life or the universe is completely full of shit.
Regarding Descartes… I don’t know what you’re getting at. I don’t know how that is supposed to be relevant. Maybe you can clarify.
“Is there order in the universe? Why or why not?”
What do you mean by order? Sure, there are physical laws that govern all matter in the universe. I suppose you could call that order. Again, I’m not sure that I know what you’re talking about.
Why should you have less respect for my belief in a dishwasher-resident invisible unicorn than for Christians’ belief in a omnipotent deity?
Because the nonexistence of the dishwasher pony is provable in a way that the nonexistence of a higher power isn’t.
As of now, the lack of evidence for the existence of God must lead any scientific-minded person to conclude that there is no God.
So clearly there are no Christian scientists, right… Except… I’m not religious but I say there is a lack of evidence of the NON-existence of God.
Keep belittling religion instead of just accepting that we live in a kind of world where one group can believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters and others believe in the non-existence of said Spaghetti Monsters and we can do so without being asses to each other, you guys won’t go far.
I am a research scientist, OW. I understand scientific method. As of now, the lack of evidence for the existence of God must lead any scientific-minded person to conclude that there is no God.
No, it doesn’t. See Kenneth Miller, Keith Miller, Francis Collins, or Sir Ronald Fisher, among others. Including me.
“Because the nonexistence of the dishwasher pony is provable in a way that the nonexistence of a higher power isn’t.”
Really? Prove it then. How do you mean to prove there is no invisible, tiny. purple unicorn living in your dishwasher?
Seriously, you sound like the very type of person you would ordinarily belittle yourself. “Na na na na I can’t hear you na na na na!!!!!”
Southern Quaker, I would argue that the arguments these people you cite make are specious, unprovable, unscientific (i.e., untestable) claims about the existence of God. But technically you’re right, I suppose… you cite respected scientists. However, in the realm of theology, they are not behaving scientifically.
Southern Quaker – “It seems to me you’re picking nits. You may feel that the creche screams “sinner!” but that is not what is on the mind of most Christians at this time of year.”
This is another way of saying “get over it,” which I’ve stated I have done, though not without effort. As for the intended message of public manger displays, I do not doubt that it is mostly benign. But the lack of overt offense in this particular symbolic display is only possible in the context of a wider cultural discourse wherein the offensive message (non-believers are damned) is given frequent voice.
OW – “atheists are far from ‘oppressed’”
I would describe the atheist’s experience as frequently “coerced into expressions of religious faith,” “intimidated into silence on matters of moral calculus,” or “marginalized in certain critical cultural and political arenas.” I distinctly recall mouthing the words, “under god,” every day in elementary school when reciting the pledge of allegiance, sweating under the anxiety that someone might notice my silence. It seems trivial to me now, as a grown-up (of sorts), but as a seven-year-old, it was a rotten way to start every school-day.
That said, you may yet think I’m comparing two incommensurate experiences, but you’re doing the same to a vastly greater degree by equating the statements on this sign to the attacks on non-Christians by the likes of Robertson and Falwell.
Sure, there are physical laws that govern all matter in the universe. I suppose you could call that order.
So we agree that there is order in the universe. How did order arise? Can you explain?
Regarding Descartes… I don’t know what you’re getting at.
Then go back to the related question before that: What is consciousness?
However, in the realm of theology, they are not behaving scientifically.
Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? Theology is not science or scientific, is it? The problem as I see it comes about when either side tries to conflate the two.
I wouldn’t apply the scientific method to literature or music, either, except possibly insofar as to what extent those two endeavors are successful at their respective goals. Religion is highly unsuccessful at explaining natural phenomena. But it does succeed in describing and contextualizing the experience of faith. Of course, it doesn’t work for everyone, any more than everyone appreciates dadaism or romanticism.
Quaker, order was “born” out of the natural, physical laws that govern all matter. Gravity, electromagnetism, etc., etc. So the natural next question is, where did THESE phenomena come from? Where did gravity come from? Why are radioactive decay rates for various elements set so precisely? How is it that the fusion of gases in the sun is so perfectly set up as to allow for us to enjoy life here on Earth? I believe you’re going down the path to the argument from design.
It could be oincidence that the parameters of existence were such that it allowed for order to spring forth.
Alternatively, we could actually exist in one of numerous universes (i.e., the multiverse). We happen to inhabit one in which the conditions were such that it allowed order, and life, to spring up.
The appearance of order, of design, does not necessitate a designer. For example, evolution by natural selection is an extraordinarily simple, dumb process… but it accounts for the staggering depth and breadth of life on Earth. It accounts for certain things that seem amazing, and designed, to us – the function of the eye, the fact that animals consume oxygen while plants consume carbon dioxide, the giraffe’s long neck allowing it to reach foliage that other animals can’t, etc. However, a designer (God) is not necessary for these things. Evolution can, and does, shape everything with respect to life on Earth. The same applies to the universe – the appearance of order does not mean that someone was there to establish order.
God is superfluous.
>Yet I would argue it requires faith to assert in absolute nothingness absent scientific evidence.<
i personally believe in common ground and understanding differences, and i believe that’s how we’ll get to where we generally want to be, by bridging gaps. but statements like this… i dunno what to say. this is a religionist talking point that has nothing to do with what most atheists think. go to skeptic sites, go to free-thought sites, go to Dawkins. most atheists will prove to be the Bill Maher type of atheist. the “i don’t kow, and neither do you, so lets not write public policy around your beliefs” type of thing. some call it agnostic, but it’s not, it’s a-theism, that’s all. non-belief. it’s really not that hard, guys. and i see also above the complete non-understanding of the idea of having to prove the negative. doesn’t everyone know about the celestial teapot?? i don’t understand how someone like Oliver can be so open-minded about so many things, and capable of incisive thought, but can’t understand that the atheist does not have to prove anything, and frankly doesn’t wish to. the atheist, in most cases, passively points out another viewpoint. please tell me how “imagine no religion” is attacking anyone? i mean. wow. for someone who is supposedly agnostic, i am readin a lot of very defensive posturing, and i don’t get it at all. i read lots free thought and atheist sites, and i rarely see the attacking that so many seem to feel is out there. “prove your case” is not an unreasonable position. and further, “believe anything you personally want, but because you can’t seem to ‘positively’ prove your case, can we not have public policy being informaed by non-provable sky fairies?” is not unreasonable either….. perception is really out of whack here. i suppose Oliver or someone else is next gonna float the “atheism is a religion too” craptastic ignorance…. i’m all a-twitter with anticipation. sorry, but who here hasn’t read and digested these ridiculous arguments already? i thought this audience was beyond that….
doesn’t everyone know about the celestial teapot?
what, Sagittarius?
Southern Quaker, if you want to tell me that theism is similar to romanticism or dadaism or the like, that’s fine. I can buy that.
However, the question of God’s existence is a scientific one. There IS an answer to the question. Theists assert that God exists, while providing no evidence. Atheists point to that lack of evidence and conclude that, absent of evidence for God, the default position must be correct (i.e., no God). As I said before, if someone provides me sound scientific evidence for God’s existence, I will re-address my belief structure.
This is a key difference between atheists and theists. Evidence matters to me – I will readily admit that I have been wrong all these years if Jesus comes back tomorrow and starts healing lepers. I acknowledge that I could be wrong, although it is doubtful with the evidence at hand. Theists, on the other hand, have no evidence but don’t care. They believe in spite of the (lack of) evidence. Because of this mindset, they will probably never back down from their beliefs, no matter how illogical or unscientific they are shown to be.
christian aaron, I hear you man. I’ve been over this with OW many times. I don’t know how to be any clearer. This is not an ideological thing, this is a logical thing… but having a conversation with some people on this topic is like a Martian talking to a fungo.
The appearance of order, of design, does not necessitate a designer.
Of course not. I’ll save you some aggravation here–I’m not a creationist or intelligent design believer. Well, at least not in the way those terms are ordinarily used. Personally, I wouldn’t even go so far as to equate order with design. But the existence of order necessitates a principle for the arising of order. Physics says matter and energy tend toward randomness.
What’s the principle? How does it work? I’m not asking for a detailed explanation. Broad strokes will do.
Theists assert that God exists, while providing no evidence. Atheists point to that lack of evidence and conclude that, absent of evidence for God, the default position must be correct.
And both forget to define what they’re talking about. How can you argue that there is or isn’t God before you explain what you’re arguing about?
then you’re no better than William Kristol Circa 1960.
Oh SNAP! BUMFIGHT!
Regarding Descartes…
Descartes was in a bar having a drink. The bartender asked him, “Would you like another?”
Descartes said, “I think not.”
And disappeared.
I love that joke.
So we agree that there is order in the universe. How did order arise? Can you explain?
Quantum Physics. Gravity. Electro-magnetism. Nuclear force. And the other one I can’t remember, etc.
It’s much easier, I’m sure, to just say “God did it,” but that only goes so far.
Religion is man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable. Once you figure out the explanation, religion has a much less tenable grasp.
The problem, mambo, is that there are two different levels of evidence at play here. There is the physical evidence of the physical world, and the experiential evidence that informs faith. You want to subject religious experience to scientific tests. I would argue, what’s the point? If you conduct a careful experiment and prove to me that my brainwaves behave differently when I am deeply centered in Quaker Meeting, it does not negate the experience I have of that centeredness. The scientific explanation of what is happening in my brain does not preclude the spiritual aspect that informs my faith. You won’t buy that explanation, it doesn’t fit into your world view. Okay, fine. I’d imagine that if we knew each other personally we could agree to disagree on that point, and get along quite well. Just please don’t tell me that I can’t be rational or a scientist and still have faith.
Oliver may have gone a bit over the deep end here in defending his position (sorry, OW), but it all comes back to the last line on that sign in the state house in Olympia: “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” Is that a positive statement about atheism or an attack on religion? I’d argue the latter, and that such rhetoric does nothing to further dialogue between theists and atheists.
Just a friendly reminder. God and religion are two related but separate concepts. Please try to conflate less. Thank you.
Quantum Physics. Gravity. Electro-magnetism. Nuclear force. And the other one I can’t remember, etc
So order arises from order? It seems the creationists don’t have a monopoly on circular reasoning. Mambo was right–the next question is: where did those things come from?
Religion is man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable.
That’s the best insight of the thread, in my judgment. But the unexplained is also not strictly the province of religionists. Those who rule out the existence of God (whether defined or not) also must leave certain things unexplained.
If you’re going to call it “Nuclear Force” instead of “God,” you’re really no closer to an explanation, are you?
And, Duros, that Descartes joke is my favorite too.
If you’re going to call it “Nuclear Force” instead of “God,” you’re really no closer to an explanation, are you?
Nope. But it is something that is testable and (albeit mathematic theory) observable.
I realize that this was way up thread, but Criminy! Give me a break. Authoritarians come in all persuasions, it would seem.
No serious theologian would ever compare atheism to a religion, only Right wing hacks do that.
No making rules about what can and cannot be compared to a religion please. Your authoritarian asshattery is showing.
Also, what Luke said.
Imagine quotation marks around the sentence starting “No serious…
in the previous comment.
Ktksbai
is like a Martian talking to a fungo
AND I’M THE MARTIAN, BIATCH!
Just making a point that while this stuff is serious its not the end of the world. Jessica Alba’s Bosom is going to strike you all down anyway.
Religion is man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable.
I would restate that as an attempt to explain the currently unexplainable.
And that is the problem between science and religion. Every scientific discovery can make the chosen god/ess/s/es a bit smaller if you require the physical world to reflect some spiritual dimension.
My problem with the whole god question comes from that physical/spiritual disconnect. If there is a loving god, then s/he/it/they have a really weird way of showing it. With all the parasitic wasps out there, said loving god really hates caterpillars, and wants them to be eaten from the inside out. Add all the suffering in the world, both purposeful and accidental.
Epicurus said it best.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God.”
I actually find it to be a much happier world without a caterpillar hating, evil tolerating, careless god that demands tribute and praise for nothing, and if you don’t, you get perpetual torture.
Keep all that to myself, all good. Put it out there, I’m a douchebag.
Well said, Robster.
“The nativity scene isn’t lecturing anyone that their beliefs are a myth. If your entire system is about debunking everyone else’s – and done with a caustic tone – you can probably expect to get slammed”
Nonsense, Oliver.
I’d bet there are hundreds of churches in that city where nativity scenes could be erected, and probably thousands of parishoners’ yards where they could be displayed – but that’s not good enough. They continually fight to display them on government/public property precisely because they want to lecture to EVERYONE.
The atheism sign worked till the last line.
They’d better have stated their beliefs without tacking on the insult at the end.
Why believe that, “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”?
Then I read, “The new breed of atheists are rude because they mirror the general attitudes of progressives and liberals, it’s not enough that someone who has a differing opinion is wrong they are evil too.”
I remembered this last decade of Republicans.
Joining with Christians made Republicans worse.
Not even Republicans, to my knowledge, have argued for the opposite.
Granted, religions includes many good people, but it reminds me of Mill, “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
The problem is not religion, but blind faith: any system of belief that people can use to shun a neighbor, fire an employee, lie, cheat, steal, torture, kill, and order others to do so – ultimately slaughtering countless human beings who have done no harm – and to feel guiltless and justified while doing the worst.
“The nativity scene isn’t lecturing anyone that their beliefs are a myth. If your entire system is about debunking everyone else’s – and done with a caustic tone – you can probably expect to get slammed”
The nativity scene is a reminder of one of the most prominent narratives in our cultural discourse: the lecture regarding Christ the redeemer and the damnation of all who fail to accept him as savior. Worse than saying others’ beliefs are a myth, the manger display is a reminder of the assertion that others’ beliefs are a sin worthy of eternal suffering.
And frankly, I prefer my debunkings to have a caustic tone. The drippy sweet tone of those who promise to pray for my salvation is much, much worse.
I will readily admit that I have been wrong all these years if Jesus comes back tomorrow and starts healing lepers. I acknowledge that I could be wrong, although it is doubtful with the evidence at hand. Theists, on the other hand, have no evidence but don’t care.
Yeah, that’s where I’m at, too. If I explain myself to the nice Jehovahs’ Witness at my door, and she says “What if you’re wrong?” My answer is “Then I’ll gladly accept God into my life.” Bu t if I ask her, “What if you’re wrong?” Her answer would most likely be, “But I’m not. Period. End of story.”
That kind of rigidity doesn’t advance the story at all.
I gotta tell you, whether I’ve agreed or disagreed with any commenter on this thread, I am AWED by how intelligent and articulate the comments have been. (That’s why I’ve mostly kept silent.)
I love this site!
Bruce Henry: Word. This is the most interesting discussion I’ve read on a site that’s usually interesting. I love it too.
I do have a dog in this hunt myself, and think the atheists’ signs were probably counterproductive, but I know that there will be “douchebags” in our ranks along with the more reserved ones for some time to come. I believe education (think history, ethology, cultural anthropology, comparative religion, sociology, etc) will do more for secularization than confrontation. It’s hard to hold with the Christian version when you know about several pre- and non-Biblical creation and redeemer myths, not to mention the realization that Jehovah himself evolved over the Old/New Testaments from belligerent Hebrew standard-bearer to loving ecumenical. And then there’s how the New Testament reached its recognized form…
Fiat Lux, in other words. Show them facts, and let them wrestle with them; that’s challenge enough. Getting them into the curriculum? May take some douchebaggery, I dunno.
I have read this whole thread (almost)… Oliver I have been waiting for you to explain what it is exactly in the atheists’ display that was out of line? Simply stating there is no God should not be taken as offensive. If your religion is that weak that someone can offend you by simply stating what THEY believe then how is that the atheists fault? I have been searching for the entire text of their display but have not found it. But from what I have heard so far I have seen nothing that attacks anyone. Please explain.. (If you have not already moved on from this subject..)
P.S.. I rarely comment but I love your site (except when you talk religion). I’m here almost every day. Keep up the good work.
Oliver, in reference to the title of this post: Who exactly were these old atheists, who were oh so respectful of religion, who never ruffled feathers or offended the religious?
No, I’m saying a minority – and atheists are far from “oppressed” – has no right to attack people who aren’t attacking them.
And we are saying that atheists do not care what you think constitutes an “attack” because literally EVERY expression of atheism gets called an ‘attack on religion’ by someone.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to profess atheistic views without being accused of ‘attacking’ religion, just as it isn’t possible to be a “polite feminist”, or a homosexual who doesn’t “shove it in straight people’s faces.”
So don’t be surprised when we simply ignore that charge, recognizing it as meaningless bigoted fluff, the religious equivalent of “threaten the institution of marriage.”
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” Is that a positive statement about atheism or an attack on religion?
It is BOTH, because it IS a statement of (one kind of) atheism’s core tenets. It’s exactly like the Christian statement, “No man shall enter into the kingdom of heaven but through [Jesus],” or Islam’s “There is no god but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet,” except only one of these gets labeled an “attack”.
Also, always remember: atheists didn’t put this sign up across the street from a church, just to harangue believers practicing their religion privately. They put it up mainly as a protest against explicitly Christian hegemony IN GOVERNMENT. There’s no WAY you get to call atheists ‘douchebags’ without first using the same appellation for the Christians who felt it was their prerogative to erect a nativity scene in the state capitol. Disrespecting the wall of separation, however politely you do it, counts for WAY more douchebag points than the tone of the protest sign.
Mambo was right–the next question is: where did those things come from?
You can keep that little questioning game up as long as you choose, and yes, at some point the answer has to be “We don’t know.” But the answer will NEVER be “God did it.”
Forget my earlier question… I see from reading more of the comments that the main contention is the last line “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”…
IMO that is a pretty tame statement.. They could have said a lot worse. It certainly does not equate to directly calling people stupid. To me it basically states why atheist believe what they do besides just saying “there is no proof”. To me it just seems like a subtle way to get a person to question and seek answers about their blind faith.
You can keep that little questioning game up as long as you choose, and yes, at some point the answer has to be “We don’t know.” But the answer will NEVER be “God did it.”
Now see? There you go again.
How can the answer never be “God did it,” if you’re going to use words you won’t define? You rule out “God did it” without bothering to say what “God” is.
Are you talking about Yaweh of the Old Testament? OK. But still there are some questions to which you answer “I don’t know,” and those questions are substantial.
For me, the question that gets to the heart of the matter is: What is consciousness?
I’ll add this:
Your typical Buddhist doesn’t believe in Yaweh. The Buddah himself did not proclaim himself a god. He did not teach anything about a creator or the source of creation.
Are Buddhists also athiests? Is Buddhism not religion?
An interesting perspective:
Pascal’s Wager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Quaker, I’d argue that Buddhism is largely a philosophy, rather than a religion. And I’m still not sure what you’re getting at with your question on consciousness. Does the definition of consciousness have anything to do with the probability, or evidence, for a supernatural entity?
I think I understand where you’re coming from with your asking people to define what God is. Typically in casual conversation, I’m talking about the Christian Yahweh, but my atheism applies not only to Yahweh, but every other supernatural entity as well, including all potential gods (e.g., Oliver’s invisible purple unicorn).
So basically, my argument is that we cannot know the “nature” of something supernatural. So anyone who tries to claim that they know that Yahweh, or Allah, or Zoroaster, or Thor, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster truly exists is totally full of shit. With respect to individual gods/supernatural entities, I am an atheist.
However, I do acknowledge that there may be more to existence than what is observable in the natural world. In this case, I sound more agnostic than anything – my point remains, though – that the odds of any god conceived here on Earth as actually existing is infinitesimally small. Much smaller than OW’s chances with Jessica Alba.
Pascal’s Wager
Parthenon’s Wager: Believe everything! No matter which ‘believe us or your damned’ faith is correct, you’re covered!
Oops, I left a clause out of my last paragraph. It should read: “my point remains, though, that it is absolutely impossible to know the nature of any potential supernatural beings/phenomena.”
Probably doesn’t make it any more clear than it already was, but I did mean to put it in there.
I’ve always lived in the South, so “your experience may vary”. In my day-to-day routine, I’ve run into maybe four or five know-it-all, smart-ass atheists.
Smarmy, holier-than-thou, pushy, judgemental, hypocritical, racist, homophobic “Christians”? Every fucking day of my life.
I’d say a few douchbags can be pardoned for a little rhetorical excess.
Does the definition of consciousness have anything to do with the probability, or evidence, for a supernatural entity?
Supernatural? No, not unless you define consciousness as supernatural and I don’t. Quite the opposite–I see consciousness as supremely natural. Even though it’s not measurable, quantifiable, or observable, it can be experienced directly.
But what is it? Is it strictly chemical? Neurological? Is it contained within the body? Is it a discrete property of separate biological organisms?
Or is it shared? Are you consiousness and mine part of a larger whole? If so, what is that larger whole?
But what is it? Is it strictly chemical? Neurological? Is it contained within the body? Is it a discrete property of separate biological organisms?
Yes.
I’m somehow reminded of all those stories about fiery plane crashes or building collapses or train derailments or tornadoes where lots of people are killed, but a 3 year old kid is pulled from the rubble and people say “God was looking out for this kid.” Well, that’s great, but what about the rest of the people killed? God thumbed his nose at them?
That don’t seem right.
Old Testament God was kind of a blood thirsty dick.
But what is it? Is it strictly chemical? Neurological? Is it contained within the body? Is it a discrete property of separate biological organisms?
Yes.
So let’s summarize.
You’re describing a universe that emerged without apparent cause or reason and which achieved order through randomness. At the same time, you describe consciousness as an illusory side effect of random order–one that appears in every living creature but without commonality.
Sounds farfetched.
Quaker, in regards to consciousness: “Even though it’s not measurable, quantifiable, or observable, it can be experienced directly.”
A couple points – 1) Yes, it can be experienced directly. The definition of consciousness (a bit slippery) is something that we all (normal, functioning) humans share. By virtue of being alive, human, and having functional brains we are all “conscious.” 2) Actually, consciousness is observable and quantifiable. Right now cognitive neuroscientists are learning more and more about the nature of consciousness, reasoning, thinking, etc. It is measurable – the use of fMRI is invaluable to the field.
Consciousness is something that arose from our human brains, which resulted from the process of natural selection over billions of years from the dawn of life on earth. You remove the brain, you remove consciousness.
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for someone, anyone, to provide solid evidence in favor of the existence of a supernatural deity.
Again, I will repeat: I am agnostic when it comes to the question of whether something exists beyond our natural world. In truth, it is possible that there are things that exist on a different plane of existence, not measurable to us, not observable. However, anyone, absolutely ANYONE that claims to know the nature of the supernatural is either delusional or completely full of shit. By definition, that which we cannot observe is outside the limits of possible human understanding – so when Christians tell me that I am going to Hell for not believing that Jesus is my lord and savior, they are completely, utterly, totally, and unequivocally full of shit.
Well, what do you know?
Someone stole the Atheist’s sign.
http://www.q13fox.com/pages/news_story_landing_page/?Atheist-Sign-Causes-National-Controversy=1&blockID=152231&feedID=144
So who are the douchebags again?
Sounds farfetched.
But saying “God did it.” somehow isn’t?
You remove the brain, you remove consciousness
Hell, you don’t even have to remove the whole brain.
Speaking of douchebags,
,blockquote>A speeding truck rammed a woman’s sedan at over 100 MPH on a Texas freeway last Friday. Why? According to the Archangel Gabriel/ Michael E. Schwab, a resident of Blooming Grove, Texas, the woman “was not driving like a Christian.” Schwab failed to explain what the woman had done to prompt the Lord’s wrath and investigators have since determined that she violated no traffic laws. She was driving North on highway 281 when Schwab struck the rear of her sedan. The impact spun both vehicles across the median before being brought to a halt by the barrier on the far side of the south bound lanes. Neither party was seriously injured by the accident, although both vehicles appear to be totaled.
Describing the accident, Lt. Kyle Coleman of the Bexar County Sheriff’s Department said, “He just said God said she wasn’t driving right, and she needed to be taken off the road.” According to a release issued by the department, Schwab told police “the other vehicle was not driving like a Christian and it was Jesus’ will for him to punish the car.” It was Schwab who told the police that he was traveling over 100 MPH at the time of the impact.
Schwab has since been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, been placed under a $50,000 bond and will now face a psychological evaluation.
God said she wasn’t driivn’ right.
Okay then.
But saying “God did it.” somehow isn’t?
Depends on what you mean by “God.” At this point you seem to be arguing that your implausibility is better than someone else’s implausibility.
You remove the brain, you remove consciousness.
If you remove the eye do you also remove the world it perceives?
atheists are more reasonable and logical than Christians
What I said is anything but ignorant
mambochicken23, if you honestly believe calling all Christians unreasonable and illogical isn’t ignorant…then you need to seriously redefine your idea of ignorance.
Quaker, you’re inappropriately conflating two items. If you eliminate the brain, you remove consciousness. If you remove the eye, you remove sight of the world, not the world itself. If you remove the ear, you remove audition. If you remove the tongue, you remove taste.
It’s not hard. One of the many functions of the brain is to give rise to consciousness, much like the eye’s function is to give visual information about the world. Cognitive scientists are studying this phenomenon right now.
In no way does your example somehow refute my argument that we cannot know the nature of the supernatural.
Additionally, are you simply trying to define God as “Anything that we cannot currently explain by science”? If so, God’s getting smaller and smaller by the day.
For fuck’s sake, Taylor. Read everything I wrote before you write something extraordinarily stupid like that. Damn it.
At this point you seem to be arguing that your implausibility is better than someone else’s implausibility.
Not better, no. Just different.
If you remove the eye do you also remove the world it perceives?
Objection. Relevance. What does vision have to do with conciousness? Does a lizard contemplate his place in the cosmos? Does a squirrel think he’d do better if he had a better job?
First off, no, Pascal’s Wager is not interesting in the slightest to anyone who’s spent more than ten minutes thinking about possible rebuttals to it.
Your typical Buddhist doesn’t believe in Yaweh. The Buddah himself did not proclaim himself a god. He did not teach anything about a creator or the source of creation.
Are Buddhists also athiests? Is Buddhism not religion?
There’s exactly as much evidence for reincarnation and nirvana as for Satan, angels, and heaven: none. Clearly, Buddhism is a religion; the question is, is it also atheist?
Well let’s be careful not to conflate the two common uses of the word ‘atheism.’ In one use, atheism means, literally, not-theism: the lack of belief in a deity, and under this definition, yes, Buddhists would be considered atheists.
But there’s another, more vernacular definition of ‘atheism’ which implies a skeptical, disbelieving, rational materialism, and under this definition, then no, Buddhists would not be ‘atheist’.
I suppose there’s no rule that says you have to be entirely rational to be an atheist; probably a non-negligible fraction of the people who believe in the loch ness monster or UFOs would consider themselves atheist, even though there’s no concrete evidence for believing in those two myths either (although they’re a lot more believable than most or possibly all religions, if you ask me – UFOs are at least not self-contradictory!).
If you wanted to, you could fairly say that Buddhism is an atheist religion, but I hope if you do, you take care to clarify what definition of ‘atheist’ you’re using, because lots of people are going to misinterpret you if you don’t.
Now see? There you go again.
How can the answer never be “God did it,” if you’re going to use words you won’t define? You rule out “God did it” without bothering to say what “God” is.
Are you talking about Yaweh of the Old Testament? OK. But still there are some questions to which you answer “I don’t know,” and those questions are substantial.
At the VERY least, I am ruling out Yawweh, Jesus’s dad, Allah, The Great Old Ones, and also whatever creation myths the Egyptians, Mayans, Incas, Hopi, etc etc etc etc have ever come up with. Any religious creation claim stronger than Thomas Jefferson-like deism is patently absurd, and no more intellectually defensible than flat-earth creationism.
When I say that “God did it!” could never be the answer (to the fine-tuning question, and others), I mean that it can never be an intellectually satisfying explanation. It’s just what someone says when they’ve given up looking for a real answer. It is, literally, a Deus Ex Machina escape from the “I don’t know” dead-end, and the sign of shabby reasoning.
If you accept “God did it” as the explanation for anything unknown, then if you are intellectually honest with yourself, you have to accept it as the answer to everything unknown, because you have no grounds on which to dismiss it in the one case but not in the other.
Or, to put it more succinctly: miracles aren’t science, aren’t reliable, and never can be, by definition.
The eyes only evolved to identify food and evade predators. Everything after that is a result of brain development, and how visual info is utilized.
but we digress.
are you simply trying to define God as “Anything that we cannot currently explain by science”? If so, God’s getting smaller and smaller by the day.
Sort of. An ordered universe is real. Consciousness of that universe is real. But I think anyone who looks for a creator “God” that exists external to either is looking in the wrong place.
I think anyone who tries to define man or man’s consciousness as external to that universe makes the same mistake. There are properties of the universe–natural properties, not supernatural–that are unexplained by current science. The possibility that they may one day be explained does not make them any less mysterious or mind-shattering. That someone chooses to label those properties “God” means nothing to me.
In other words, in my book, “God” is a natural property of the universe, or vice versa–it really doesn’t matter which.
Does a lizard contemplate his place in the cosmos? Does a squirrel think he’d do better if he had a better job?
Not to take this already-too-long thread down a different rabbit hole, but I think Mr. Lizard and Mr. Squirrel actually do a little better than those mundane preoccupations. Unlike Mr. Descartes, I don’t think “consciousness” is the same as perception of “self.”
Quaker: “I think anyone who tries to define man or man’s consciousness as external to that universe makes the same mistake. There are properties of the universe–natural properties, not supernatural–that are unexplained by current science. The possibility that they may one day be explained does not make them any less mysterious or mind-shattering. That someone chooses to label those properties “God” means nothing to me.”
That is fascinating.
I would like to point out, for the record, that if this is what theists did, that I too would have no problem with it. However, this isn’t what they typically do – if this was their mindset, there wouldn’t be more than a single religion. Things like Christianity and Shintoism and Hinduism would cease to exist, if believers in “God” were simply acknowledging and naming the unknown.
I’d also like to point out that your line of reasoning sounds remarkably similar to thoughts I had years ago that led me to dismiss the notion of free will. But this is perhaps another rabbit hole…
are you simply trying to define God as “Anything that we cannot currently explain by science”? If so, God’s getting smaller and smaller by the day.
Smaller every day, yet still far greater than the universe we can explain.
if this was their mindset, there wouldn’t be more than a single religion.
And in my estimation there is just one religion. Unfortunately, we have a mulitiplicity of failed expositions of it.
“And in my estimation there is just one religion. Unfortunately, we have a mulitiplicity of failed expositions of it.”
Try telling that to the vast majority of people. They are (wrongly) going to look at you like YOU’RE the crazy one. But I understand your point – at least I think I do.
I wonder if we understand each other at this point. I think so.
Cheers, Quaker. Good discussion.
Try telling that to the vast majority of people. They are (wrongly) going to look at you like YOU’RE the crazy one.
Believe me, I know.
But I think anyone who looks for a creator “God” that exists external to either is looking in the wrong place.
Now you’re talking my language. I’m not of the Atheism that says “there is no God,” I’m more of the type who thinks god is a personal manifestation.
Cheers, Quaker. Good discussion.
Second.
I recommend “The Last Three Minutes” by Paul Davies. Throw in a few scraps of Buddhism, Hinduism, and beer-fueled shamanism and you’ll see just what I mean.
We see that a lot in the US. Driving while female, walking while female, speaking while female, existing while female, are all likely to get you assaulted from time to time.
I’m just gonna try and close that open tag, there.
Answer: Because they are sick and tired of religious wingnuts, bent on exorcising the ‘witches’ and demons out of our society crowing endlessly on about the End Times, Homos, and Abortion while simultaneously munching down on shrimp scampi.
Enjoy.