Comments on: Spread of the Article http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/ by Hemant Mehta Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:43:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Phil Wyman http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-28071 Phil Wyman Tue, 15 May 2007 12:33:11 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-28071 I now have proof that atheists exist. It's on podcast from the Conference: God for People Who Hate Church. <a href="http://www.salemgathering.com" rel="nofollow">The Gathering</a> is where it can be found. Yes, it's true Mehta - you are real, and so are your friendly nieghborhood atheists. I now have proof that atheists exist. It’s on podcast from the Conference: God for People Who Hate Church. The Gathering is where it can be found. Yes, it’s true Mehta – you are real, and so are your friendly nieghborhood atheists.

]]> By: HappyNat http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-28066 HappyNat Tue, 15 May 2007 12:14:16 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-28066 <blockquote>A lot of atheists are completely invisible. </blockquote> shhhhhh don't tell anyone, especially Chuck Norris. It would ruin our plan to take over the world if he knew half of our "troops" were invisible. :)

A lot of atheists are completely invisible.

shhhhhh don’t tell anyone, especially Chuck Norris. It would ruin our plan to take over the world if he knew half of our “troops” were invisible. :)

]]> By: Richard Wade http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-28020 Richard Wade Tue, 15 May 2007 07:14:25 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-28020 So, uh Ebonmuse, did you like say the magic words? Huh? I mean out of fairness and open-minded inquiry did you say the prayers out loud three times like the fruitcake said? Huh? I mean we're all wondering. So what happened? Did you like become a theist or something? Or bleed on your hands and feet? Huh? C'mon Ebonmuse, we wanna know. Did ya? Huh? So, uh Ebonmuse, did you like say the magic words? Huh? I mean out of fairness and open-minded inquiry did you say the prayers out loud three times like the fruitcake said? Huh? I mean we’re all wondering. So what happened? Did you like become a theist or something? Or bleed on your hands and feet? Huh? C’mon Ebonmuse, we wanna know. Did ya? Huh?

]]> By: Becky Robinson http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-28002 Becky Robinson Tue, 15 May 2007 05:12:48 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-28002 "First you must brainwash yourself with “blind faith” and block out any doubt." Is this person serious?? So, there you go Hemant, just forget everything you know about logic and reason and you'll be just fine. Wow. . . “First you must brainwash yourself with “blind faith” and block out any doubt.”

Is this person serious??

So, there you go Hemant, just forget everything you know about logic and reason and you’ll be just fine. Wow. . .

]]> By: Susan http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27999 Susan Tue, 15 May 2007 04:50:52 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27999 Ebonmuse- Your friend with the magic words seems awfully bloodthirsty, doesn't he/she? All that "BLOOD OF JESUS" stuff… Ebonmuse-
Your friend with the magic words seems awfully bloodthirsty, doesn’t he/she? All that “BLOOD OF JESUS” stuff…

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27990 Ebonmuse Tue, 15 May 2007 04:04:33 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27990 Hemant, the person who wanted you to prove God's existence by going into your closet and shouting sounds suspiciously like the person who invited me to <a href="http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-power-of-christ-compels-you.html" rel="nofollow">say some magic words that would make me a theist</a>. That person never identified themself to me. I wonder if you're dealing with the same individual? Hemant, the person who wanted you to prove God’s existence by going into your closet and shouting sounds suspiciously like the person who invited me to say some magic words that would make me a theist. That person never identified themself to me. I wonder if you’re dealing with the same individual?

]]> By: Steelman http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27903 Steelman Mon, 14 May 2007 23:16:20 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27903 This talk of agnosticism vs. atheism reminds me of an essay by historian and philosopher <a href="http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/02/atheist-or-agnostic.html" rel="nofollow">Richard Carrier</a> that I read a few months back. He concluded: "Though these categories aren't synonymous, you still can't sort unbelievers into 'atheists' and 'agnostics' any more than you can sort them into 'persons' and 'people'." Personally, I have to agree that I'm both an atheist and an agnostic. It just depends on the descriptions of any given God(s) that are being argued. This talk of agnosticism vs. atheism reminds me of an essay by historian and philosopher Richard Carrier that I read a few months back. He concluded: “Though these categories aren’t synonymous, you still can’t sort unbelievers into ‘atheists’ and ‘agnostics’ any more than you can sort them into ‘persons’ and ‘people’.”

Personally, I have to agree that I’m both an atheist and an agnostic. It just depends on the descriptions of any given God(s) that are being argued.

]]> By: miller http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27822 miller Mon, 14 May 2007 19:28:58 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27822 Atheists are no more "really agnostics" than agnostics are "really atheists." People can define these words to mean whatever they want (I am a semantic relativist ;)). You can argue over labels, but that doesn't change what people actually are. Also, in response to Rob Henry, I would be extremely careful about making generalizations about nonbelievers based on personal observations. There are strong selection biases at work. A lot of atheists are completely invisible. Atheists are no more “really agnostics” than agnostics are “really atheists.” People can define these words to mean whatever they want (I am a semantic relativist ;) ). You can argue over labels, but that doesn’t change what people actually are.

Also, in response to Rob Henry, I would be extremely careful about making generalizations about nonbelievers based on personal observations. There are strong selection biases at work. A lot of atheists are completely invisible.

]]> By: Susan http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27819 Susan Mon, 14 May 2007 19:11:29 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27819 (Er…sorry for the long post. It kind of got away from me.) (Er…sorry for the long post. It kind of got away from me.)

]]> By: Susan http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27818 Susan Mon, 14 May 2007 19:10:27 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/14/spread-of-the-article/#comment-27818 Ron, I agree that the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is an important one, and there are many agnostics out there, as well as on this site. However, too often I hear the argument that "all atheists are really agnostics, because you can never know for sure", and I find it a bit silly. (I realize this isn't quite what you're saying, but it's a related idea.) The fact is, you can't really <i>know for sure</i> about anything. All we have to determine what reality is are our own perceptions and thoughts, and those are certainly fallible. There could be a god implanting thoughts in our own minds, there could be no god but the product of our own imaginations, or all of you could be figments of my imagination and I could be the only being in the universe. It would all look the same to us here on the inside. However, if we walk around all the time refusing to say "I know" because we can't know anything, the word becomes useless and meaningless. Nevertheless, there are some things we <i>expect</i> with a stronger degree of certainty than others: I am fairly certain that tomorrow the sun will rise, whereas I'm only somewhat confident that when I roll this die I'll get a number greater than 1. I think it's quite appropriate to use the word "know" to describe things like the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, even though it's quite conceivable that some hitherto-unknown law of the universe will cause the earth to stop spinning or the sun to turn invisible. When that happens we'll have to change our model of the universe to account for it, but for now we've got a huge body of evidence (the fact that the sun has risen every morning in recorded history) that implies that the sun will continue to rise every morning in the future. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm quite willing to change my view of the universe when some new piece of evidence presents itself to the contrary. This doesn't mean I can't say that "I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning." What I'm getting at is that I am exactly as certain that there is no god as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. This doesn't mean I know absolutely for sure that no god exists, and given evidence to the contrary I will happily change my viewpoint, but for now I'd say it's fair to state that "I know there is no god," in the same sense that "I know the sun will rise." For this reason I think it's perfectly reasonable for an atheist to "know" that no god exists in this practical sense of the word, whereas an agnostic might have a significant level of doubt. As a sort of corollary to this, I'd say that I don't perceive it to be worth my time to try to find evidence for god at this point. I'm not particularly inclined to look for evidence that the sun doesn't always rise, either, because I strongly suspect that even if evidence is available I'll have a hard time finding it. Likewise, I highly doubt that I'd be able to find true evidence for the existence of god, given that way smarter people than me have been making the effort for hundreds of years. I don't think I could add anything useful to the search, and I can do better things with my time. (To give <i>another</i> analogy, even if Fermat's Last Theorem hadn't finally been proved, I don't think it would be worth my time and effort to search for a counterexample to it--there are way smarter mathematicicans with better computer systems who would be more likely to find it if it did exist. (This analogy isn't to great since it has been proved conclusively that no counterexample exists, which isn't possible outside the context of mathematics, but you get the idea, I hope.)) Ron,
I agree that the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is an important one, and there are many agnostics out there, as well as on this site. However, too often I hear the argument that “all atheists are really agnostics, because you can never know for sure”, and I find it a bit silly. (I realize this isn’t quite what you’re saying, but it’s a related idea.)
The fact is, you can’t really know for sure about anything. All we have to determine what reality is are our own perceptions and thoughts, and those are certainly fallible. There could be a god implanting thoughts in our own minds, there could be no god but the product of our own imaginations, or all of you could be figments of my imagination and I could be the only being in the universe. It would all look the same to us here on the inside.
However, if we walk around all the time refusing to say “I know” because we can’t know anything, the word becomes useless and meaningless. Nevertheless, there are some things we expect with a stronger degree of certainty than others: I am fairly certain that tomorrow the sun will rise, whereas I’m only somewhat confident that when I roll this die I’ll get a number greater than 1.
I think it’s quite appropriate to use the word “know” to describe things like the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, even though it’s quite conceivable that some hitherto-unknown law of the universe will cause the earth to stop spinning or the sun to turn invisible. When that happens we’ll have to change our model of the universe to account for it, but for now we’ve got a huge body of evidence (the fact that the sun has risen every morning in recorded history) that implies that the sun will continue to rise every morning in the future. I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m quite willing to change my view of the universe when some new piece of evidence presents itself to the contrary. This doesn’t mean I can’t say that “I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning.”
What I’m getting at is that I am exactly as certain that there is no god as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. This doesn’t mean I know absolutely for sure that no god exists, and given evidence to the contrary I will happily change my viewpoint, but for now I’d say it’s fair to state that “I know there is no god,” in the same sense that “I know the sun will rise.”
For this reason I think it’s perfectly reasonable for an atheist to “know” that no god exists in this practical sense of the word, whereas an agnostic might have a significant level of doubt.
As a sort of corollary to this, I’d say that I don’t perceive it to be worth my time to try to find evidence for god at this point. I’m not particularly inclined to look for evidence that the sun doesn’t always rise, either, because I strongly suspect that even if evidence is available I’ll have a hard time finding it. Likewise, I highly doubt that I’d be able to find true evidence for the existence of god, given that way smarter people than me have been making the effort for hundreds of years. I don’t think I could add anything useful to the search, and I can do better things with my time. (To give another analogy, even if Fermat’s Last Theorem hadn’t finally been proved, I don’t think it would be worth my time and effort to search for a counterexample to it–there are way smarter mathematicicans with better computer systems who would be more likely to find it if it did exist. (This analogy isn’t to great since it has been proved conclusively that no counterexample exists, which isn’t possible outside the context of mathematics, but you get the idea, I hope.))

]]>