by VorJack
Luke over at Common Sense Atheism writes about a work criticizing the “New Atheists” for their militancy and their anti-theism. The work was publish in 1986, 20 years before The God Delusion.
It’s a reminder that atheists have been around for a while. While there have been waves of “new atheists” before, the current wave seems to have been much more successful in getting people’s attention and starting a debate. The question is why this wave has been more successful than previous ones.
I’m open to ideas, but I’ve got my own hypothesis: The factor that’s made the greatest difference is the internet.
Atheists have always been a minority. Religious minorities are frequently in an awkward position, particularly when the majority considers their very existence to be a challenge. So atheists have tended to keep quiet, sometime not even realizing that the person they are speaking to is another atheist.
The internet has alleviated some of this problem. First it provides a semi-anonymity, which allows people to speak freely. Second, it’s created a way for people who are geographically spread around the world to meet together and discuss. So the internet provides something of a support group, which makes the atheists stronger and more confident. This also produces a group polarization effect, which makes the stronger atheists more confrontational.
So when folks like Dawkins came along, there was a ready made audience for their work. The success of The God Delusion helped get other atheist works published, creating the wave of “New Atheists” we see today.
That’s my idea, at any rate. What’s yours?
I agree. When I first started questioning my faith, I went right to the internet. I researched articles from a variety of angles and asked questions in forums where I knew people would give it to me straight, without sugarcoating any of it. And oh, they did! My pride took quite a beating a number of times. Then, when I began de-converting, I found a TON of support online, which helped me complete the process without losing my mind. :)
I think the Internet is a very big factor, but I would also cite 9/11. In very stark and immediate terms we came face to face with a really, really ugly side of religion. This was compounded by the upwelling of religiosity that followed from it. For a lot of rational people, this was a real turn-off and people started to realise that religion needed to be challenged in a more robust way than ever before. No longer, when architects were flying skyscrapers into buildings and presidents were calling for crusades, could we think of religion as “out of bounds” in terms of public discussion.
I agree. I think what distinguishes the new atheist is the determination to speak out about the destructive aspects of religion. They are (cough) evangelical.
Well, it is either that or let our world burn in the flames of ignorance and superstition.
I have to agree with you but think about what it says about the non-believers out here. Religions have been killing in mass numbers for years and it wasn’t until it hit us here at home that it woke some up. Myself I started questioning religion long ago but never really felt it was possible for me to say anything until I got onto the internet. I have to thank people like Vorjack and Daniel for helping to get the word out.
One could raise the 9/11 as a factor as well, but I think that would be more limited to the American public, which was directly affected by both the jihadist attack and religious upheaval that followed.
But as for the rest of the world, which could only indirectly relate to the event, I don´t think that would be of major significance.
As a Brazilian I can well say that 9/11 plays only a fringe role in the raising awareness about the New Atheism movement. I would however agree that the Net is what really makes the difference.
What I can tell relates to my personal experience: born and raised as a Catholic, I had never been exposed to any anti-religious ideas presented in a consistent fashion until I visited a rather pamphletary site (I think it was http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/).
That first contact happened about 8 or 9 years ago, and it left me profoundly disturbed, even though I had never really considered myself as the religious type. To challenge the existence of a historical Jesus had never crossed my mind, and it made my head spin.
I certainly owe to the Net that first spark of disbelief.
I´ve only learned about Prof. Dawkins very recently and read both The Selfish Gene and The God Dellusion with a thrill. I´ve also read God is not Great by Cristopher Hitchens, and watched innumerable videos about atheism on YouTube.
I can pretty much say that the Internet was fundamental in my decision to come out of the closet as an atheist.
Unfortunately I can´t say that is a real trend back here in Brazil for a variety of reasons. Actually people tend to react badly when you want to start a debate, it is considered of very poor taste to challenge irrational convictions that have been implanted since childhood.
The government should be impartial towards religion, and I use “should be” because it is not at all. In fact, this very year it has been signed an agreement between the Brazilian government and the Vatican that institutes mandatory religous teaching in elementary schools across the country.
It is true that the agreement has been criticized by a few, but the argument against it came mainly from the Protestants, who could not accept the Vatican trying to regain its lost terrain by indoctrinating the Brazilian children.
Even though the Net has reached people like me, it has failed to reach the broder share of the population, mainly because of the lack of resources translated to Portuguese.
There´s also an absence of a talented voice such as that of Prof.Dawkins speaking in Portuguese in favor of the atheist cause.
One most honorable exception would be the literature Nobel prize winner José Saramago, who does not lacj in talent and cultured sarcasm, but who is most of the times dismissed with a sneer as an eccentric.
To finish my point, for I have extended well beyond what I first intended, I can well say that the Net was the major factor in my enlightment, not 9/11. The Net does provide the means for those who are willing and able to learn, communicate and share points of view such as these.
The Internet provides a great deal of resources that are easy to access, as well as communities of safe harbor of people who can reinforce doubts and provide alternative answers to nagging questions. Before, if you wanted to ask an atheist something, you had to know one and know that you know one. Now, you can just pop on a blog.
I first started to question my religious belief around 1987 when I was about 12. The internet wasn’t an available resource back then nor did I have access to any atheistic reading material. I didn’t know about organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation or American Atheists… etc. I was raised Roman Catholic but the beliefs of the church didn’t sit well with me. Around that time I was very interested in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60′s and did a lot of independent research on figures like Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. In reading about Malcolm X I learned that he converted to Islam from Christianity that made me wonder if I could change my own religion, not necessarily to Islam, but I decided I wanted to research the beliefs of other faiths and see if there was anything more suitable for me. The only thing I found most suitable to me was Buddhism, but there were aspects of it like reincarnation that seemed illogical to me because I didn’t really believe that humans possessed a soul that was capable of living outside of your body whether that meant in a heaven or hell or in another living body. But the basic beliefs of Buddhist philosophy were genuinely inspiring. If it wasn’t for the reincarnation nuttery I’d probably have become a Buddhist.
Ultimately I couldn’t decide on a religion and couldn’t decide if a god existed or not and decided I was an agnostic. I don’t remember giving the issue much thought after that until I was 18 and came out for the first time to another person. I was in a study group that consisted of the girl I started dating a few weeks prior, my girlfriend’s best friend, and her boyfriend. The subject of God came up and Amy, my girlfriend asked me if I believed in God. I told her I did not believe in God and was in fact an atheist. It was the first time I consciously considered myself an atheist. Amy was a devout Christian and was shocked by my revelation. It didn’t end our relationship, but it caused a great struggle between us.
We did eventually break up for another reason not related to religion. She went on to marry her college boyfriend and the 2 of them ran a church together with her husband being the lead pastor and her leading bible study groups and stuff. She and I got reacquainted about 10 years later and ended up having an affair that produced my son who is now 17 months old and caused her marriage to end in divorce. She and I are no longer together tho. This time the reason IS because of religion, and I am raising our son on my own.
Around the time Amy and I got back in touch a couple years ago I had been getting more active in my atheism via the internet. It’s been incredible to find that there are so many other atheists out there. While I can’t say the internet “caused” my atheism, it certainly added fuel to the fire. It helped further shape my own belief as well as give me a lot more source material to read about religion from both sides of the argument and access to books I didn’t know existed prior to having internet service. The difference between me at 18 and me in my late 20′s to early 30′s is at 18 atheism was new to me and I didn’t know anyone else who shared my beliefs. Now I’m a strong anti-theistic atheist and that certainly made a relationship between myself and a devout Christian woman awkward and difficult despite our feelings for each other.
Sorry for the long post here, but that’s my story.
So, as an atheist you fucked the Christians wife and are now bragging about it?
Or confessing?
Or what?
Yeah, your atheism really impresses me, weasel.
Similar situation you describe. I was never very religious but from growing up with a dabbling in church it shaped some of my beliefs on a god and some of the bible stories. I remember watching with rapt attention a documentary on Noah’s Ark, believing in bigfoot, Loch Ness, ghosts and the like. Granted I was 10 at the time so the only research I had was the TV and the library. I grew out of most of the silly ones and was left with a spirit like belief in the afterlife with a hell/heaven possibility. It wasn’t until much later (late 30′s) I started questioning more and learning about religion. Up until then I hadn’t cared enough about it to worry about it. God Delusion and other web sites turned the corner for me. Militancy and anti-theism name calling is hypocritical to a point of disbelief on my part.
Regarding the internet I would add that its probably given theists more exposure to atheists and their reasoning in any single year since its become widespread than would have occurred in 20 or 30 years of pre-internet time. There simply didn’t exist a place before coming online where believers and skeptics “mixed it up” to the degree that they do now.
I think another polarizing component of the Internet’s impact is increased exposure to hate-filled or uncharitable or lunatic fringe posts by people claiming to be religious.Things people might never say out loud, they are perfectly willing to post. I feel I used to be far more tolerant and able to get along with religious believers — now I am more wary and afraid that their inner thoughts might be in agreement with the more virulent posters out there, unless proven otherwise.
I have to say that my tolerance has been eroded by Internet exposure as well.
To add to this, I think that moderate believers have also been exposed to these religious internet loudmouths and caused them to take a little more anti-religious (or maybe anti-biblical) stance. I have read many times from a moderate Episcopalian or even Catholic that they thought only backwoods Christians literally believed that the whale really ate Jonah until they came across so many on the internet.
I work with a guy who is a literalist and he is generally pretty intelligent. He now says wrt YEC that he “doesn’t know” the age of the earth – primarily because of internet discussions he has had where YEC’s have come off looking so silly. Whether he really “doesn’t know” or whether he himself just doesn’t want to look silly so he keeps his mouth shut, I am not sure.
Ray Comfort uses the same disingenuous dodge.
Is the supposed dodge that we don’t know the age of the Earth? Cause that’s not a dodge, it’s a fact. Science has some estimates (perhaps even good estimates) but that’s all they are. I personally believe in an old earth.
Calling that “just an estimate” is like calling the scientifically observed size of the sun “just an estimate”, as equivalent with the ancient guesses that it was some tens of meters across.
Estimates backed by precise and repeatable measurements universally beat guesses at approximating truth, and can reasonably be called “knowledge”. We know the age of the Earth to a degree of precision and accuracy that puts the ancient guesses to shame (and opens some embarrassing holes in their creation myths).
I didn’t say it was “just a” anything. That would be an attempt to cast science in a poor light and I’m a big fan of science. I said it was an estimate and in fact said that science even had “good” ones. I didn’t belittle science or imply that the current estimate was on par with the ancient ones for accuracy. I assume it’s great deal more accurate than anyone in the ancient world could possibly have had.
I won’t and haven’t said that estimates don’t beat guesses. They should and do. The better our science gets the better our estimate will become. Now so far as either one of us “knows” the actual age of the earth/universe is bigger than we suspect by a factor of two or more. I would imagine that the tools we have now will be put to shame by the ones humans will have in 2000 years. Want to place a bet as to how accurate our estimates will look then? I suspect they will be put to shame. No reason to think otherwise.
Our estimates are extremely accurate. They just aren’t very precise. All figures have built-in tolerances expressed in significant figures. When we say “The earth is 4.5 billion years old, what we mean it “The age of the earth is closer to 4.5 billion year than to 4.4 or 4.6 billion years.” Pretty much everyone gets this intuitively.
Janet – Agree entirely. We also need to be aware that atheism can come across as very strident to people who are having their cherished beliefs challenged, particularly in the written word where humour is hard to put across. However manic the nutballs appear to us , so we can appear to believers if we are not very careful.
That’s really true, that last sentence. As a Christian it is very easy for me to demonize atheists and think of you all in those terms. Thanks to the internet I have become good friends with an atheists and have slowly gotten to know a couple more. We’re not going to convert/deconvert each other but it’s been good to meet and humanize those that disagree with me/I disagree with. So thanks Interent!!
I don’t think it’s JUST the Internet, but I think the Internet is definitely a contributing factor. Partly because it is very useful for doing something that religious folks are very good at and that atheists have traditionally NOT been good at – community building. The Internet turns out to be a great place to find likeminded people and organize together.
Additionally, I think American Fundamentalist Evangelicals and their counterparts among the Muslims in the Middle East and the “fundamentalist” Jews in Israel are all helping the cause of atheism one step at a time. The more crazy these folks get – and the more they are allowed by the more “liberal” elements of their faiths to represent themselves as the “True Believers” of those faiths – the more attractive atheism becomes. If the liberal Christians – the Karen Armstrongs and Robert Wrights and others – would stop with their editorials and tongue clucking about the “New Atheists” and work to attack the crazy fundamentalist elements of their own faiths as publicly and with the same fervor they currently reserve for going after atheists, religion might look a bit better to folks these days. But they don’t. They let the conservative elements of their religions off the hook with an eye roll and a “oh that’s just how they are – no one listens to them anyway” and then proceed to attack atheists instead. They don’t seem to realize the damage they are doing to their own religions by taking that approach – that they’re marginalizing the folks in the middle who might actually want to stay believers but are being told that they have to be intolerant and anti-intellectual to be “truly” religious.
I think that’s what’s really causing religions to bleed members – in the States at least. Good hearted people are looking at the folks who have been allowed to become major spokespeople for Christianity (and other religions) and are appalled by the intolerance and ugliness of what they’re seeing. So they start calling themselves “spiritual but not religious” or they end up rejecting it alltogether. This process has been going on for a while, but it’s coming to a head now because of mass communication (like the Internet), the disgusting attitudes and actions of the fundamentalists of all stripes, and the inane lack of decisive response by the more liberal elements of all of these faiths (who seem to be more concerned about being denounced as heretics by the fundamentalist elements than they are about cleaning up their own houses).
Jer, you articulated this beautifully. I hope for a world one day in which the stigma we currently experience is attached to religious belief. Imagine! People hiding their Christianity as many of us now hide our atheism!
I’d prefer people have the social freedom to be upfront about what they believe, rather than have to suffer covertly. Regardless of what they believe. Surely it is possible to be mature about the other guy being wrong, right?
debg,
I’m sorry if your in a situationthat you need to hide the fact that your an Atheist. but assuming your not in a country that would cause you bodily harm or imprison you for speaking out against the dominant religion, if you want to live in a world where atheism isn’t something you feel you need to hide just stop hiding it. I don’t mean you should bring up the subject of religion and shove it in peoples face but if the topic comes up don’t beat around the bush, just say it and don’t feel you have to automatically defend that position either. When I first started to consciously started to identify myself as an atheist I felt worried about letting people know because I felt like admitting I was an atheist basically amounted to telling them I think their deepest held (assuming they are very religious) are flat wrong. Eventually I got past this for two main reasons, the first and one and the one I don’t explicitly state is that I do think their wrong and the second being their religion (not all but most) says that all other beliefs are wrong.
I know this post is getting long, so I’m going to just say one last thing, according to “American polls”* atheists now outnumber Jews. So we’re well on our way
*I found this in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, I don’t know what polls he is talking about and I don’t have the actual book here with me to look it up. you can see the relevant page from the text here though.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=atheists+outnumber+jews&source=bl&ots=1ghC_1DiDO&sig=kXVGOzrffO3KbDWmiETB7hG9iGs&hl=en&ei=krchS43TH4-vngf-hfzcCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=atheists%20outnumber%20jews&f=false
Bravo! I couldn’t have said it better or as well.
“I don’t think it’s JUST the Internet, but I think the Internet is definitely a contributing factor. Partly because it is very useful for doing something that religious folks are very good at and that atheists have traditionally NOT been good at – community building. The Internet turns out to be a great place to find likeminded people and organize together.”
Unfortunately the internet also works to on community building on the religious lunatic fringe.
I love the internet, I hate the internet, I love the…..
Perhaps, but they had fairly effective means of communing and socializing before the Internet, whereas Atheists really didn’t. So, it’s been more of a boon to us than to them, in relative terms.
I agree Jer,
There is an additional item of interest. I’ve read that nations that traditionally had a formal national religion – in Europe anyways – tend now to have hefty numbers of atheists.
The USA, where there was a separation of church and state, tended to have much lower atheism rates. This was because if you felt any particular religion to be wrong, you had options that were relatively easy to obtain. Thus, religion of all stripes could thrive and people could find what felt right for them. Belief soared.
Now that the USA’s church and state separation is not so separated, what with the fundies sending more and more senators and congresscritters to Washington, an imposed religion seems to be a real threat. Thus leading to a collapse of belief.
So atheists should thank those who are fighting to remove the separation of church and state from America. It’s given a push to dis-belief, AKA rational thought.
I’d say the internet is probably one of the strongest tools in assisting closeted atheists in coming out. As a person who lives in a rural area with more churches on some roads than houses, I was definitely glad to realize through online blogs and discussions, that not everyone bought into religion, and I was most definitely not alone in my thinking. Since most discussions about theology and faith in this region are very cut and paste from last Sunday’s sermon, no further thought necessary, its hard to even broach the subject of why I don’t believe and why their beliefs have little foundation. The internet opens up thoughtful discussions (sometimes) and like-minded voices (we all love our conformation biases) to help this atheistic hick not have an intellectual meltdown while living a stones throw from “Falwell country.”
I also agree with the above commenter, that the further a religion goes towards “fundamentalism,” the more there will be a widening gap of people who truly see the crazy for what it is. Thus opening the minds of some to lose religion period.
The internet is a big factor. We can easily talk and debate. I still am not debating with people out in public, but I will debate anyone online that I need to. I am not saying I wont in person, but online is easy because we can think about responses and it can provide complete anonymity if you want it to.
I don’t feel like anyone would be hostile to me if I come out to them as an Atheist, either in real life or online. This may be my skewed perception, but everyone I’ve dealt with about it either doesn’t care or is an Atheist themselves.
The internet is ALMOST as good as beer.
I”m gonna pull an Aor, and call you a liar.
Nothing on God’s green earth is better than beer.
I just realized that didn’t make any sense….
AHAHAHAHA, I’M CRACKING UP!!!!
Look what you all have done to me…
Too much beer?
or… not enough?
winner
The internet is the biggest thing since the printing press. Before the internet was established, most Christians didn’t know that the debate (god vs. no-god) even existed. Now that Atheists are “out” and proud, the mainstream Xtian is being forced to face the fact of our existence and the questions that we pose.
The truth does set us free, and now it is available to virtually anyone with ears to hear.
Note that when the printing press was invented, it took 5x a persons yearly salary to own one. A lot of money but not insurmountable for common people to disseminate their ideas and opinions. 20 year later, it took 1000 times a persons yearly salary to own one. Thus limiting free speech to those with money.
When the radio was invented, it took thousands of dollars to have your own radio station. Again, common people could get in on the commenting of the day. 50 years later, it took millions and you had to compete against the big guys. Again, a limiting of free speech to those with money.
Now we have the internet. It costs no more than hundreds or thousands of dollars to own your own blog. It’s even fairly easy to get your own ideas out there for free. Thus, a new form of free speech. So has anyone been paying attention to the concept of net neutrality? In 20 years, it again will require you to have millions of dollars to maintain a popular personal blog. And again, the limiting of free speech to those same monied interests.
It’s the pattern of history. It will happen again if we are not careful.
Hello guys, i stumbled you last night, came on this morning and found this post. So i did what any blogger should do… i blogged it. >> http://allwetalkabout.blogspot.com/
Please show an interest, i have a real wish for some networking.
New technologies definitely had an impact.
For me, and a few other of my friends, a defining moment was the news release about the Catholic Church covering up the abuse and molestation scandals. While, yes, this was basically known as a problem of the faith, I don’t think people realized just how extensive the issue was. Being part of the Catholic church from that point onwards felt like it was condoning their actions.
Before the age of the Internet, a news report of some priest-gone-astray might be covered in a local paper. But it would also be treated as an individual who fell off the path or righteousness. When that report was released, it became all too clear that, not only did the church know about the issue, they willingly swept the issue under the rug.
That lead to a lot of people realizing that 1) the clergy just as fallible as us and
2) morally speaking, there was a top down problem in the moral guidance of the clergy.
Before that point, I was often questioning my support of the church and religion in general. After that, I left religion behind me and moved on toward the ideas of individual faith and more philosophical practices of virtue.
The Internet is a tool that has helped, but personally I see the recent swell of atheism (which has included me, a recent de-convert) as a backlash to the way the Christian right has in the last decade become such a political bully.
Or maybe I’m just saying that because of my experience. The way Christianity has recently become such an utter embarrassment on the political level was one of the things that got me seriously questioning my faith. First it was “How can people take us seriously if we all sound like Sarah Palin?” Then it was “Would God send someone to hell for failing to believe someone that sounds like a lunatic?” Then it was “Would God send someone to hell for failing to make a leap of faith at all?” Then it was “Wait a sec, why the hell do I even think there’s a God in the first place?”
I should clarify that I’m not just talking about the presidential campaign, but also the way Christians have fought against science in schools, or in favour of war, or in favour of massive subsidies to oil companies while denying basic health care to citizens, etc.
As a Brit I want to say that lots of people who were unthinkingly agnostic began thinking and learning more about religion and skepticism and then became openly atheist in the last few years because of the American Christian Right. We can’t stand them and we DON’T WANT THEIR KIND OVER HERE.
We have the Church of England which is something that old people and posh people do for form’s sake and is fairly liberal and mostly too dull to be scary. We have various more active religious institutions wherever there are immigrants because they make people feel connected and at home and because religions will always leach off the poor and excluded. We don’t, as yet, have too many fundamoentalists but just in case we’re learning how to fight them off. We’ve seen what’s happened to you lot and we don’t need that over here thanks.
So, yeah, those of us who care about the separation of church and state, but weren’t too fussed about the issue of whether there was a god or not, saw Dubya and Palin and their ilk and the chaos they have brought and decided we’d better learn more about our real opinions. When we looked into it (mostly by looking stuff upon the internet) it turned out atheism was the only logical choice. So we’re standing up and being counted before those people can get more than a toehold.
I also believe that the internet is responsible for the rapid rise of alternative religions such as Wicca and the Neo-Pagan movement. Before the 1990s and the WWW, Wicca was virtually unknown. Now it is a popular religion for young people as well as adults.
The internet gives us free exchange of information, including religious and philosophical information. This shows us that there are other ways of understanding the world around us besides traditional religion. In the Old Testament, God forbids the Israelites from studying other religions for this very reason.
If traditional religions want to stay in power, they must limit/censor/destroy the internet and the free exchange of information.
I agree with Jeremy. The increased visibility of fundamentalism has created an increased interest in Atheism.
Plus, if good ideas tend to push aside bad ideas, then isn’t a rise in atheism (over the long run) in keeping with the natural order of things?
Kind of like evolution.
The reason way the old atheism failed, because its main spokesperson in America was Madeline Murray O’Hara. She was a crude unattractive person who run America Athiest like a cult and a family enterprise.
The new athiesm has spokespersons like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins & Christoper Hitchens. (Even the fictional Dr House) These men are cultured, educated, witty and speak with moral conviction on the dangers of religion.
While the internet has help organized the new atheism, there are two events which finally caused many athiests to come “out of the closet” and be more vocal about their disbelief; 9-11 and the presidency of George W Bush.
I think it was more the overt ascendance of the religious right to political power that scared the non-believers into action. The merchants of intolerance at the levers of wordly power combined with the history of christianity to persecute non-believers whenever they had the power to do so was just too much to take lying down. For non-believers to sit quietly in their closet or engage in polite academic debate (a la Paul Kurtz) just hadn’t made a dent. So, I’m grateful that the four horsemen of the “new atheism” and others came along. Sure, the xians immediately feel persecuted; that’s part of their thing.
Agreed, and endorsed!
The thing is… when there was no internet, we were at the mercy of whomever would publish our personal or collective views. Not many will do so these days, but the internet, being unfettered, gives us each access to a world of folks who are already in our community. The daily bashing that is dealt to religion and religionists shows that ‘god’ isn’t out striking the non-religious dead, giving courage to those who doubt anyway.
The thing that needs to be done is for us to continue dismantling this entire religion industry through constant critique, analysis, and exposure. Making it less cool to be ‘god fearing’, repressed, and ignorant. Learning how to witness for rational thought, and how to stop enabling adult fantasy by passive acceptance of public piety.
I was de-converted by asking too many questions. A very good friend who was a non-believer would do the most wonderful things for those less fortunate and was just an all-around good guy. I just couldn’t understand why he wouldn’t be accepted into heaven, but was told that he would burn in hell unless he was “saved”………
Then, I basically went into the closet and called myself “agnostic” or “spiritual” while trying on many different religious hats. None fit, but I just stayed to myself about it.
A good friend I actually met via the internet turned me on to this site. Now that I’ve been checking out all things atheist via HTML…………..I feel really saved!
that said, I do think the internet has made the discussion more open and fair. Both sides of the argument have a forum, but it’s now out there for all to see.
I am interested to know how much of Richard Dawkins and others book sales came from the internet versus stores. Upon release, many stores were not comfortable selling these sort of books, and even today don’t particularly advertise them. The internet may have been the source of most of allot of these book sales.
I disagree. Internet is a proper noun and should always be capitalized.
Common usage does currently suggest capitalization.
I find these neo-atheists as as much if not more annoying than the religious types, especially since most of them also seem to display an Anti-Social Psychological Disorder (ASPD) by demonstrating a total lack of compassion and disregard for other people’s feelings.
I don’t belong to either group, I am an agnostic, I understand that I believe and base my logic on certain widely accepted dogmas (which some call axioms) mostly for the sake of common sense; I try to understand everyone’s point of view; and I am quite annoyed by the current spam of “God hate” that’s been circulating around the Internet recently, especially since these neo-atheists preach on (and spam) information hubs that I consult regularly (i.e.: Reddit) whereas the religions types at least have the decency of sticking to their own gathering places.
Found out there’s no God? Great for you, no one else cares!
Found out there’s no God? Great for you, no one else cares!
This is clearly incorrect. *You* may not care, but you are not everybody.
———-
The rest of your post is the very definition of smug superiority, and you accuse others of being sociopathic?
Choom, we’re very much alike you and me.
I also assume that my opinion is a majority opinion.
Welcome to the club.
No friend, I’m trying to alert you for the fact that from a logical point of view both theism and atheism are forms of belief, with atheism being a lot harder to prove, but with the burden of proof lying on the theist side.
If you, in in any way, think of yourself as a science person, then your beliefs are enclouding your judgment in this case as much as they are for theists. The fact is that you don’t have to believe in neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a God to study any subject, the simple fact that you pick a side in this argument is evidence that you feel insecure about your beliefs.
No, that’s not it. I stole this from Cynical-C:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk
No Choom, I’m sorry but you’re wrong. Atheism isn’t the opposite of theism, it’s the absence of it. By you’re argument, we all have a religious belief concerning pink fluffy veruca fairies – clearly we don’t, because I just made them up. We have an absence of belief, same as I have an absence of belief about Yahweh. It’s just something else that some dude made up.
What you are describing there is agnosticism, which is the group that I’m part of. Atheists believe in the nonexistence of deities. Check your definitions.
Well, you’re wrong there, chubby.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Aatheism&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
I don’t know whether that reply was for me, but there you go, a list of definitions for atheism.
PS: Claiming that someone is wrong without providing any kind of explanation or reference to outside sources does not constitute a valid argument.
You said atheists believe in the nonexistence of god. None of the definitions you posted agree with that statement, except a wiki and a couple religious websites. I would not take the definition of my position from a religious site, nor should you agree with “the internet” without examining the etymology of the word A-THEISM – “without god-belief.” Rejecting belief, the absence of belief. Not the same as a belief in the absence of – it’s not a belief in the sense that you proposed it or in any context except backwards and misunderstood. You have no credibility in this argument because you are trying to use the word against what you want to believe is the meaning, but isn’t. Sorry I didn’t post an explanation with my “claim,” but I don’t have to when I’m right and you’re wrong. You posted what you consider evidence, but you failed to examine it closely.
I see that later down, you prefer to go by agnosticism, (is that the “BELIEF” that you don’t know? or the simple lack of knowing or committing?) it seems you are some sort of non-atheist atheist. You are rejecting the word because you were misinformed of its intentions, or because you can’t “prove” something, you will not formally deny it or commit to it. I know some atheists get a reputation for being a prick, so some like to distance themselves from the “group” or the hot-button term itself, or are pedantic such as yourself. You seem to like to call us all pricks while being kind of a prick yourself about what you think is correctamundo, so have you actually contributed to the thread or are you just working out some grievances material in preparation for Festivus?
> You said atheists believe in the nonexistence of god. None of the definitions you posted agree with that statement, except a wiki and a couple religious websites.
For starters, claiming that the source is biased does not invalidate an argument (especially since you aren’t presenting any proof of bias or contradicting evidence to the original point).
Secondly, I would like to understand how Wikipedia or the Princeton University (which appear in the first results for the previously suggested Google query) can be considered religious websites.
Third, I have presented you with evidence, therefore the burden of proof lies on you, claiming that my evidence is not acceptable does not make me wrong, especially since you are yet to provide evidence of your own.
> I would not take the definition of my position from a religious site, nor should you agree with “the internet” without examining the etymology of the word A-THEISM – “without god-belief.” Rejecting belief, the absence of belief.
First, what religious website are we talking about again?
Second, since when is rejection a synonym for absence?
Third, by rejecting a belief and taking sides you are demonstrating that you have a different opinion (which implies a belief). An agnostic simply does not have a formed opinion.
>: You have no credibility in this argument because you are trying to use the word against what you want to believe is the meaning, but isn’t. Sorry I didn’t post an explanation with my “claim,” but I don’t have to when I’m right and you’re wrong.
When I mentioned on my first post here that atheists usually display ASPD I was referring to this. Thank you for proving me right.
I also find it quite amusing how you tell me that I don’t have any credibility while refusing to provide any kind of evidence to support your own claims in the same sentence. You know, for someone who criticizes religion for being dogmatic you couldn’t be contradicting yourself any more than this.
>: I see that later down, you prefer to go by agnosticism, (is that the “BELIEF” that you don’t know? or the simple lack of knowing or committing?) it seems you are some sort of non-atheist atheist. You are rejecting the word because you were misinformed of its intentions, or because you can’t “prove” something, you will not formally deny it or commit to it. I know some atheists get a reputation for being a prick, so some like to distance themselves from the “group” or the hot-button term itself, or are pedantic such as yourself. You seem to like to call us all pricks while being kind of a prick yourself about what you think is correctamundo, so have you actually contributed to the thread or are you just working out some grievances material in preparation for Festivus?
This almost made me fall of my chair.
I’m agnostic because I don’t give a flying crap about things that I am clearly not prepared to understand! I am perfectly fine without knowing or pretending to know the answer to my own existence or the existence of the universe, the question simply does not bother me and I am open to any possibility, be that deities, aliens, entropies, or even something else! To me, theists are as right as atheists, both are forms of belief and I don’t defend either!
I wish I’d seen the linked video (below) before I responded to you, as you are little more than the trolls you accuse of polluting your favorite websites. This is why I love the internet. I am clearly no match for you. There is a reason I don’t tend to get into arguments. I agree, I’m not as articulate as say, Elemonope or Sunny Day and that makes me sad, because I know I was right the whole time. I dislike when someone says my argument does not follow logic, therefore it is incorrect. I did not provide proof, so this negates my assertion. That itself does not follow logic. As you are agnostic, or say you are, you are well aware someone is right and someone is wrong without being able to prove it or articulate it in any way which convinces someone to change their mind. You are a mockery of agnosticism to use this dodge to bark your way out of your hole.
That “define: atheist” on google is a total trap!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OozkaHxMvFA
Then I don’t understand the purpose of your diatribes. GTFO? Or calm down and discuss things without all the raving hostility you seem to have pent up. I don’t read all the posts but I don’t recognize the name.
You seem to have some difficulty with some atheists on your favorite websites getting in the way of your favorite secular things so you can ignore religious debates in peace, and so you come here to rant about other people. Are we all your problem? Aren’t you generalizing a wee bit, and then come here to bust balls in frustration? reddit.com doesn’t seem to be the ideal place to get away to your own pleasant enclave, where people only talk about things you like to hear. If that is where you like to casually absorb the information that interests you, and your problem is atheists who are off-topic, you have come to the wrong place for sympathy! Downvote them, and report them for being off-topic, I don’t know what you are expecting us to do about your problems at reddit. I don’t care, here is not reddit.
As I understand it agnosticism says that we can’t know about god’s existence or non-existence. a-gnostic = no knowledge. Atheism says that we can know that there is no god, a-theism = no god.
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of god(s) is unknowable. Check your definitions.
What exactly is wrong in my definition? Doesn’t that make it an absence of belief, precisely what the grand parent is talking about?
ATHEIST
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’
AGNOSTIC
ag·nos·tic
n
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
ORIGIN Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know
No Choom, you’re still wrong. Agnosticism is uncertainty about whether you do or don’t believe in God. Atheism is an absence of belief. Really, honestly, I don’t want to offend you, but you’re wrong.
From the poster above you:
One who DISBELIEVES or DENIES the existence of God or gods.
This denotes an opinion, which implies a belief, in that deities do not exist.
No, “disbelieve” does not imply belief.
Definition of “disbelieve” from various sources:
• verb 1 be unable to believe. 2 have no religious faith.
dis⋅be⋅lieve [dis-bi-leev]
–verb (used with object)
1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
–verb (used without object)
2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
Everything in your post reads like pro-theist propaganda. From what I gathered in your post atheists are annoying, pathological, lack compassion, lack common sense, and are indecent.
“Found out there’s no God? Great for you, no one else cares!”
Unfortunately most religious people do care. When theists quit trying to influence laws I’ll quit whining about theists.
Just because I don’t defend what I consider to be an erroneous train of thought doesn’t mean that I am defending the opposite, and also erroneous, train of thought. There are more than two sides to this question, though unfortunately the third side is usually a lot less represented since most people have a need to believe that they understand everything, it’s only how they fulfill that need that differs (the theists believe that there are one or more higher level entities pulling the ropes whereas the atheists believe in the great entropy).
The truth of the matter is: there’s a lot of crap that we do not understand and a very high chance that the commonly accepted postulates that we take for granted and base our logic on are wrong. It is not wrong to believe in something and deduce from it (axioms, the base of all common sense, are all about that). It is, however, wrong to exclude all other possibilities only because they do not match your beliefs. Those who are truly interested in understanding how the universe works do not encloud their judgments by taking sides in pointless bickering.
When god appears and makes a difference in “how the universe works” we will take that as it comes and give it its due consideration. Until that time, the universe appears to be working how we observe it to work, without any input from some supernatural force. That pretty much sums up atheism. That doesn’t sound like a belief there’s no god, but it sincerely rejects a god who does not appear except to people in their feelings that he feels like he is there to them and how they describe what he wants them to do and where they are definitely going when they die, and where they are definitely sure I’m going when I die. Is that how the universe works? Does that seem likely to be proven? Or any god or supernatural force? The farther away some people believe from the fundamental myths makes so little sense – to reject this as obvious horseshit, to design a more credulous god for modern humans – is ridiculous. I ridicule it actively.
You are right, we don’t know for sure, but we can guess pretty closely that there’s almost for certain definitely not probably a god. A lot of it sounds made up because it is, and so far doesn’t serve much in the way of activating the universe. He is mostly sitting in people’s “hearts” when they need an imaginary friend who agrees with everything they want to think is true – then it is! Maybe they use this feeling to be good citizens, which is useful if that’s what they need to be good, but obviously some of them use it for wickedness against their fellow humans, and think they are still good. Magic is an illusion.
> When god appears and makes a difference in “how the universe works” we will take that as it comes and give it its due consideration. Until that time, the universe appears to be working how we observe it to work, without any input from some supernatural force.
As shocking as it might sound to you, “hidden variables” for which there is currently no explanation are already accepted in physics. I suggest that you read about quantum entanglement.
> That pretty much sums up atheism.
That pretty much sums agnosticism. Atheists do reject the possibility of the existence of deities, preferring more mundane explanations (even if they’re completely wrong) and not feeling comfortable without filling the void.
> That doesn’t sound like a belief there’s no god, but it sincerely rejects a god who does not appear except to people in their feelings that he feels like he is there to them and how they describe what he wants them to do and where they are definitely going when they die, and where they are definitely sure I’m going when I die. Is that how the universe works?
Indeed it doesn’t, and that’s because there’s absolutely no rejection in your example. The idea of the existence of deities was simply not contemplated at all.
> Does that seem likely to be proven?
The existence of deities is as likely to be proven as the nonexistence. Regarding the redefinition of religion, science does it too, it just feels more natural to you because it’s based on widely accepted dogmas which we call axioms.
> You are right, we don’t know for sure, but we can guess pretty closely that there’s almost for certain definitely not probably a god. A lot of it sounds made up because it is, and so far doesn’t serve much in the way of activating the universe.
The question is how extensive are the made up parts. If there’s any kind of spiritual information to be had, then how much was lost and how much interference was added by the primitive human entities that received it? Your guess there is entirely based on your beliefs. A religious type certainly thinks differently, and no matter how highly you think of yourself, everyone is entitled to have an opinion so long as they don’t force it on others.
> He is mostly sitting in people’s “hearts” when they need an imaginary friend who agrees with everything they want to think is true – then it is! Maybe they use this feeling to be good citizens, which is useful if that’s what they need to be good, but obviously some of them use it for wickedness against their fellow humans, and think they are still good. Magic is an illusion.
This demonstrates that you haven’t thought much about this subject. A God does not necessarily have to be a third party, it can be the super conscious entity comprised by all of our spiritual selves. You and I can very well be part of the same entity, just like processes in an operating system, we’ve just not figured out how to get to kernel space yet. The possibility that space and time might be illusions is very high, and the fact is that right now you can not explain quantum entropy or entanglement because both concepts seem to defy all logic.
Religion kills people, kills minds, and kills society. Atheist desire a society free of religion. Do they not have the right to want this? Do they not have the right to convince people of their views? Let us take this to its logical extreme.
How dare you talk about your political views, I don’t want to hear about them. Those people dying in Africa, I don’t care about them. I bet proponents of slavery didn’t enjoy being told that they were bad people. Racists want people to just leave them alone so they can continue to hate minorities and drive them from their cities.
Evil can only triumph when good men do nothing. Religious thinking, the world view that says “I don’t need to investigate, learn anything new, or ask questions because this book has all the answers I could ever want” is destructive to our world. It is as destructive as slavery, as monarchy, totalitarianism, and world poverty. You may be content to sit on the side lines and let religious leaders attack our freedoms. You may be content to watch those who know nothing accuse those who try to learn of being “elitist” and convince the populace not to listen to them. You may be content to keep our society chained to ignorance and unquestioning devotion to authority.
Thinking like this is what made people tell gays “just stay in the closet and stop shoving your lifestyle in my face”. If homosexuals had listened then sodomy would still be illegal.
Telling blacks to just deal with their subservient lifestyle. They got their freedom, why do they need to rock the boat and get all offended about not being equals?
Do you know how Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, the Taliban, Sadam, Caesar, etc. all came to power? They came to power because those who disagreed with them were too polite to speak up. They didn’t want to seem pushy and annoying. Why should we try to defend Jews? They are used to being crapped on, and besides I might lose friends if I tell them that Jews are people too.
Don’t rock the boat is the absolute worst advice ever invented in the world. Change has never come about because people sat in their houses and didn’t say anything controversial because it might offend someone. Do you think that Gandhi was afraid that the other Indians might see him as extreme? Do you think that MLK Jr. cared that people thought he should stop being so confrontational about civil rights?
I care about the future of humanity. I care about our world, our civilization, and our species. If I sit by and do nothing, if I stay silent when I can speak, then I am complicit with those who would destroy everything I cherish. New atheists are exactly what we need. We need people who refuse to say “you can believe in your gods and make religious laws as long as they aren’t too mean”. No, it is never okay to make religious laws. No, it is never okay to claim that you have all truth and anyone who disagrees with you is going to hell to burn forever. No, it is never okay to try and destroy the scientific, philosophical, and moral advances that our species has made because they don’t agree with our preconceived notions of truth.
When theists no longer feel they have the right to pass laws based on their religious doctrines. When parents no longer brainwash and psychologically abuse their children with religion (and if you don’t believe that eternal punishment for minor sins is psychological abuse then you don’t understand human psychology at all). When it is no longer acceptable to believe that there is one source of ultimate truth in the world. When theists no longer believe that they have the only wisdom, the only truth, and the only morality in the world. When the pursuit of knowledge is followed wherever it leads without having to worry about someone being offended that they descended from apes. When no more people die because god told someone to kill them. When all of these things happen, then it will be time for the new atheists to sit down and stop being so noisy.
Until that time I will fight for my freedom, the freedom of my children, the security of my civilization, and the enlightenment of humanity. I am not going to shut up and sit down just because some people don’t like hearing that they are wrong. Guess what, religionists are wrong, they don’t have a direct line to the creator of the universe. They don’t have a right to be insulated from the incorrectness of their beliefs anymore than does a journalist have a right to ignore all facts and invent his stories. These religionists, these young earth creationists, these jihadists are trying to shape our society to fit their religious image. Only a coward would be silent and let them do whatever they want for fear of offending someone. You may be a coward, but I am not!
> How dare you talk about your political views, I don’t want to hear about them. Those people dying in Africa, I don’t care about them. I bet proponents of slavery didn’t enjoy being told that they were bad people. Racists want people to just leave them alone so they can continue to hate minorities and drive them from their cities.
It is not wrong to believe in something, what is wrong in your example is trying to force your beliefs upon others.
> Evil can only triumph when good men do nothing. Religious thinking, the world view that says “I don’t need to investigate, learn anything new, or ask questions because this book has all the answers I could ever want” is destructive to our world.
That’s a question of opinion; insects have been around far longer than we have, they haven’t read any books (at least as far as I know), and they are doing alright! Yes of course we’re different, but we won’t cease to exist without scientific research. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing is entirely dependent on one’s beliefs. It’s not wrong to believe, but it’s wrong to claim that what you think is good for you is also good for others. If you want fairness, then how about not forcing your beliefs upon others?
> You may be content to watch those who know nothing accuse those who try to learn of being “elitist” and convince the populace not to listen to them. You may be content to keep our society chained to ignorance and unquestioning devotion to authority.
I would be happy if people were free to choose without outside influences. When I discuss a subject I try to be as unbiased as I possibly can and present all the pros and cons of each side so that people can judge by themselves. I don’t think I’m any more enlightened than anyone else, and that is precisely why I default to an agnostic position. If you don’t like to think and wish to follow someone else’s lead, that’s OK; if you have a strong opinion about something and people wish to follow you, that’s also OK; it is when you try to force your beliefs upon others that’s wrong, because then you are interfering with someone else’s freedom.
I will not quote the rest of your post because you are clearly still struggling to understand that what you should be fighting against are not the people who do not share your beliefs but rather the people who try to force their beliefs upon others, EVEN if they believe in the same thing as you do.
Your argument to insects completely misses the point. Insects don’t have nuclear missiles and a belief that god wants them to initiate Armageddon. Insects don’t have science to destroy, cultural achievements to be reversed, or bigotry to be inflamed. Insects also don’t have religion. Every insect is already an atheist. However I won’t be so silly as to try and use them to support my point. Without scientific research mayhap the human race will survive. What will not survive though is our culture, and the future that we so desperately need.
I would like to know what you mean by “force your opinion”. There are a huge variety of meanings for that phrase. What you seem to be implying is that we wish to “force our opinion” by punishing anyone who doesn’t agree with us. I’m pretty sure that no one in this forum has ever said that they want to make religion illegal. If they have then I disagree with those people on the strongest terms possible. The only “forcing” that I do is to speak my mind, to tell people what I believe the truth is. Your argument is similar to people that say homosexuals should “stop flaunting their lifestyle”. But what is flaunting? In their opinion (like my mother in law) they shouldn’t even be allowed to mention that they are homosexual because then they are pushing into peoples faces. That is utter bullshit. Telling someone the truth is not forcing my opinion on anyone. A I said multiple times, sometimes people need to hear things they don’t want to hear. If you see a murderer trying to kill someone would it be wrong to tell them they should stop? How about something to a lesser degree. What if you see someone abusing a child, or how about dumping garbage into a lake? Do we not have the right to tell them that they are wrong? I am really curious, what do you expect people to do? Should we all walk around not saying anything because it might offend someone? Can I not state an opinion because you might disagree with me? Sorry, that’s not how the world works. The fluffy, happy, politically correct, “let’s not say anything that might possibly in any conceivable way offend someone” is stupid, weak, and childish. I’m sorry if you are not mature enough to accept the fact that someone might have a different opinion than you. That is the reason why we have free speech. I state my opinion, you state your opinion, we argue them out, and in the end we theoretically come to the truth. If I never state my opinion because it might offend you then we never reach the truth. If we don’t speak out against what we believe to be injustice then we are nothing but cowards who are complicit in the brainwashing and psychological torture of millions. No one is forcing anything though. Atheists do not bomb churches. Atheists do not make laws against religion. Atheists do not insist that they have the one truth in the universe. Theists bomb those who don’t agree with them (jihadists, abortion clinics, etc.). Theists make laws against other religions (gay marriage, installing the ten commandments on court house lawns, etc.). Theists claim that they have the one truth in the universe. You can’t be forcing your opinions on someone until you actually use force. The new atheist movement does not believe in using force (force of violence or force of law) against theists. Maybe some of them do, we are after all individuals. However, if there are atheists that want to use force to stop people from believing in god then I know that me, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, the other leaders of the new atheist movement, and nigh on everyone on this board will agree with me when I say that those people are wrong.
I see with your last paragraph you fall into the false freedom. Sure, you have a right to believe in god. I’m not saying that you don’t. But that doesn’t mean you are right. I have a right to tell you that you are wrong. You do not have the right to silence me. I also don’t have the right to silence you. I have never claimed that it is wrong for theists to give their opinion. I have never claimed that it is wrong for them to try and convert people. However, while they try their tricks and deceptions I will be showing people how to think for themselves and escape the tricks.
> Your argument to insects completely misses the point. Insects don’t have nuclear missiles and a belief that god wants them to initiate Armageddon. Insects don’t have science to destroy, cultural achievements to be reversed, or bigotry to be inflamed. Insects also don’t have religion.
I thought you were blaming religion for preventing people from thinking on your previous post, and you don’t create nuclear weapons without thinking (at least I hope that we agree on this). Hell, Einstein was Jew! He truly believed in a God so much that at the end of his life he could simply not accept quantum mechanics as a complete theory because according to him “God does not play dice with the universe” (referring to the entropy)!
Some people simply don’t like to think, therefore there’s no point in forcing them into doing it. Those people like to believe in something or someone and follow them, they are devoted followers and have their use in society, so why fight them? Why not gather up those people and work with them towards a common good instead of forcing them into roles that they don’t enjoy? Why do most people choose a competitive rather than cooperative approach in the light of differences?
> I would like to know what you mean by “force your opinion”. There are a huge variety of meanings for that phrase. What you seem to be implying is that we wish to “force our opinion” by punishing anyone who doesn’t agree with us.
I am referring specifically to the neo-atheist spam in information hubs (which I believe that I mentioned in my first post here). I simply don’t care whether you found out that there’s no God, and certainly neither do the theists, so please STOP SPAMMING THE INTERNET!
> Your argument is similar to people that say homosexuals should “stop flaunting their lifestyle”. But what is flaunting? In their opinion (like my mother in law) they shouldn’t even be allowed to mention that they are homosexual because then they are pushing into peoples faces.
I don’t see people almost brag about being homosexual in Reddit on a daily basis, but once that trend starts spreading, believe me that I’ll be the first to comment on it because it’s spam. It’s not so much the being atheist that bothers me but the fact that people talk about it as if it was the newest cool thing and how they belong to the group of cool pseudo-intellectual neo-atheists that like to think for themselves, so they gotta tell EVERYONE about it!
> If you see a murderer trying to kill someone would it be wrong to tell them they should stop?
Depends on whether the person being killed agreed to be euthanized, but if that’s not the case then we should do our best to prevent that from happening, simply because the murderer would be interfering with someone else’s will to live.
You should have noticed by now that all your examples include transgressions that affect other people’s freedom, meaning that what you consider wrong are these transgressions and not whether people believe in something or not.
> Can I not state an opinion because you might disagree with me?
Not at all, you are free to state your opinion, so long as it’s not spam… Sites like this one and sites dedicated to religion are probably a good place to discuss this subject. Reddit, in the other hand, is not.
> I have never claimed that it is wrong for them to try and convert people. However, while they try their tricks and deceptions I will be showing people how to think for themselves and escape the tricks.
As I said on my previous post, beliefs do not necessarily have to be a bad thing. You seem to think of yourself as more enlightened than others (you make broad claims about religion being a form of deceit in the previously quoted sentences, for example), and you believe that it is your job to show those people who do not think the way you do how right you are and how wrong they are, and that’s a problem! Your approach is a problem, it is confrontational and does not bring anything of good to either party! Not only because you might not be right (you can not claim this, even though you do) but also because those people might not be interesting in hearing your opinion, if they were they would be here discussing this very subject, or they would ask you personally.
lots of points here. One, who gives a damn if Einstein believed in god? He didn’t (actually read about him and his quotes like this one “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” or look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein) Anyways, I’ve said it before, it doesn’t matter if a billion people believe a lie it doesn’t make it truth, or if one person believes the truth it doesn’t make it a lie. All we base our trust on is evidence, reason, and sound logic. We really need to kill this “Einstein was a christian so that means you need to be as well”. Einstein wasn’t a christian, and even if he was rational people don’t give in to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Light that one annoys me.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. I’m not forcing you to believe me, I’m not even forcing you to listen to me. It is my free choice to speak, and your free choice to listen. If you don’t like what people are saying in a place (like reddit) then don’t bloody go there. You have a terribly skewed concept of what “force” actually means.
We are not insects. We are nothing like insects. Insects don’t have to worry about teaching their children, about war, about poverty, about science, about climate change, about justice, about morality, about any of the things that are actually important to our society. It is a false analogy and a stupid one at that. Insects are bloody bugs with an IQ of what, 0.125! I’m not going to base my ideas of what works for society on what things with an immeasurably small intellect have come up with to survive in an entirely different situation. There is no comparison whatsoever, drop the insect analogy.
Me posting my thoughts and opinions isn’t forcing anything. Guess what, you don’t have to read them if you don’t want to. This isn’t your internet, it is our internet. I have as much a right to state my opinions on religion as you have to state your opinion on what is the best recipe for apple pie. According to your definition of forcing (i.e. speaking) can’t I tell you to stop ramming your opinion down my throat? How dare you tell me what I can and can’t say? See, it gets pretty ridiculous.
Religion is affecting other people’s freedom, especially when it directly leads to people making laws that make certain lifestyles illegal.
You don’t own reddit. You can’t just decide that certain topics are off limits there. It, like all the internet, is the public sphere.
Of course I might be wrong. It is possible, though terrifically unlikely, that there is actually a personal anthropomorphic god who created and controls the whole universe. It is also possible that this god is an invisible pink unicorn, or a pile of spagetti. It is additionally possible that there is a tea pot orbiting the sun exactly opposite of the earth that directly controls the migration of the monarch butterfly. Anything is “possible” however many things are so improbably as to be practically impossible. Anyways, the whole point of this article is refuting your point. I am sure that the evangelical doesn’t want to hear that he is wrong. Guess, what, I’m not speaking to him. I am speaking to the people he has brainwashed, and maybe I’ll even convince him. It is a psychological effect called conformity bias. The famous experiment that studied it is talked about here http://www.experiment-resources.com/asch-experiment.html Furthermore, when people lie about their beliefs to fit in they begin to believe those lies. Here is another psychological experiment showing how that works. http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/how-and-why-we-lie-to-ourselves.php
So you see, when atheists stand up and say god isn’t real it allows those who are on the fence, who are secretly atheists, and who are becoming disturbed with faith to realize that they aren’t alone and intelligent and good people are atheists. So no, we aren’t going to shut up just because you are annoyed. I’m going to say that your annoyance is rather insignificant to the fate of our society and our world.
Information is the cause of the new athiests. The internet is only the source of the information. Religion can only truly thrive in ignorance and darkness.
Dont worry.. all you atheist will pay the price for your ungodliness .
Yes, and the “price” is:
-having fun and freedom in my life because I am self-determined
-not allowing some arbitrary book to make me, as a woman, into a second class citizen
-using my brain to think critically instead of being a sheeple
-not worrying in the slightest bit that something as silly as hell could possibly exist
What have you got?
I think you meant “atheists” — plural. “All you atheists will pay…”
It’s important to get things like that right, otherwise we might mistake you for someone with a low intelligence level. You were probably just trying to fool us with all those grammar errors.
Ah yes, spoken as a true beacon of cHrists love, compassion and forgiveness!
We’ve been paying the price for your godliness for a while. Where shall we send the bill?
WIN!
/argument
i didnt read the other comments here so this may have already been said…. but…. ITS HAVING A RATIONAL MIND THAT ISNT AFRAID TO QUESTION DEITY WORSHIP that creates atheists. the interwebs just gives people the tools to question that society didnt offer to previous generations. as a species and as intelligent beings, we are growing up and our need for fictitious deities as parental figures is waning.
I’ve been saying this for quite a while now. I don’t think enough attention is payed to the role of the internet in atheism, and I’m glad you’re writing about it.
The internet is also why atheism is not at risk of dying out, as some naysayers like to “warn” us.
This thread is beginning to degenerate, those first guys had good points. Here’s my 2 bits:
Fundamentalists are like sociopaths trying to blend in, the church welcomes them but doesn’t have a program to handle them. They wreak havoc. The church as an institution needs something like an SAT exam to determine representational ability. The other way is to let popular opinion reveal them. Everybody wants some kind of ideal community, & the church could provide that if they listen to what’s being said.
The problem is that fundamentalists are the honest religious people.
The basis of religion is that there is a higher authority, god, who knows all things and has all of the answers. A moderate religious person is one who pretends to accept gods authority, but defers to public opinion so they don’t get ostracized.
A fundamentalist is one who actually accepts all of gods authority and then acts on his/her/its commands regardless of public opinion.
Now, on a personal level I far prefer moderate religionists. However any moderate religionists is capable of becoming a fundamentalists once they realize that they are being hypocritical about their belief in their deity. For instance, the bible says to kill all witches. A moderate ignores that passage, thereby ignoring some of gods commands because they are unpopular. A fundamentalists will say that following gods will is more important than following public opinion and so will kill the witch. The saddest thing though is that if you ask them, moderate religious people will say that following gods will is more important than following public opinion. All it takes is a good speaker, a strong dose of guilt, and revealing what god wants to turn a moderate into a fundamentalist.
The core framework of religion is dangerous to human civilization. We gave up monarchy because we realized that unquestioning obedience is not a virtue but is in fact a flaw. The basic construction of religion is:
1. God has all of the answers, so we don’t need to seek them anywhere else.
2. One should submit all of ones free will to the will of God.
So, sorry, but the church cannot be a force for good unless it stops being a church.
luckily recent studies have shown that people tend to think that God wants what they want…
Speaking as a “moderate religious person” I can say you’re dead wrong about moderates. I haven’t known a single “fundamentalist” that’s actually killed a witch.
As far as your points one and two are concerned:
1. God knows all but expects us to find a good portion out using reason. I know you’re going to disagree with that and claim that we’re irrational or unreasonable for believing in a God. I can’t convince you otherwise so I’m really not going to bother trying except to say that history is full of religious people seeking knowledge through science, philosophy, and other “worldly” methods. The knowledge that Christianity imparts is only that which is necessary to obtain salvation. The Bible does not contain nor does it claim to contain all knowledge necessary for human beings under every circumstance.
2. I don’t believe anyone truly possesses a free will. This isn’t a theistic position by necessity as I know of at least on atheist who agrees with me. In my case it is one and I would argue that following God frees your will to be what it was intended to be.
Your last statement is a bit of a non-sequitur since you weren’t talking about churches but as individuals. I will say that there are good and bad churches. I would ask you how you define the word church, before I’m willing to go much further.
My definition of church: A church is a group of people who gather together to discuss and act out the tenets of a particular religion. There is almost always an authority figure, even if this figure is merely a book. The opinions of the authority figure are accepted as true because the church believes that the authority figure has superior knowledge.
Yes, I know that with this definition it is possible to twist it so that all science academies and schools are “churches”. However it is only churches that believe they talk to god and thusly have special insight into the truth.
The point on free will…I am assuming you are saying that you believe in a deterministic universe? I have no real argument on you over this point. It may or may not bring up some interesting theological points (I’m a philosopher so I greatly enjoy theology as well) but that is really neither here nor there.
I am not going to insult you by saying that you must be irrational and unreasonable simply for believing in god. Many rational and reasonable people do believe in god. It is my opinion that the reason they continue believing in god is because they have not thoroughly examined him/her/it. I see no reason to believe that you are irrational unless you begin acting irrational. I also freely admit that there are many scientist, philosophers, and great thinkers who have been deeply religious. Know thought that it doesn’t matter who believes in religion. If a million people believe in a lie it does not become the truth. If only one person in the world believes the truth it does not become a lie.
Christianity is a revealed religion. By this I mean that the truths of the religion have already been layed out rather than having to be discovered personally. Basic tenants like “for god so loved the world…..”, hell, sin, and the like come from the bible. Because it is a revealed religion the text is vitally important to the religion. There are three classical methods that are taken for interpreting the text.
1. The text is all true.
2. The text is partially (from only one word to the whole thing) true but metaphorical.
3. The text is false.
Mode three is that which non-believers take. The bible has some words of wisdom and some truths. However it is no more true than The Lord of the Rings, or the Dune Series by Herbert. All have some strong arguments and some good ideas, but none are divinely inspired. Obviously if a believer takes this path then he is not truly a believer.
Mode one is that which is taken by the fundamentalist. They claim that the bible is the divinely inspired word of god (it says so in the text!) and that because it is the work of a perfect god it must then be perfect (which I also believe it says). With this interpretation believing in Jesus is a no-brainer. The bible is perfect, the bible says Jesus is lord, therefore Jesus must be lord.
Mode two is that which is taken by most moderates. However this is a completely untenable position. God says the bible is true. If the bible wasn’t true then why believe in it? However there are some pretty silly things (Jonah and the whale, Noah and the ark) and there are some pretty nasty things (Paul supporting slavery and misogyny, god ordering the slaughter of innocent people). So the moderate says that those things must be metaphorical, or that god is different now. Now, besides the intellectual absurdity of a perfect being changing (did he become more perfect?) there is the problem of deciding which parts of the bible are metaphorical. The bible nowhere inside it says that some of these things are metaphorical and you shouldn’t believe anything in it. In fact the bible says the exact opposite at certain points. Since the bible can’t be used to choose which parts to believe and which parts not to believe we have to use modern thought. Modern thought changes though, what you believe to be moral and true and reasonable is not what someone form the 13th century would believe to be moral, true, and reasonable. When the new testament tells slaves to submit to their masters the 13th century theologian said “see, god is okay with slavery”. The 20th century theologian says “god wants us to metaphorically submit to our master who is Jesus”. Why are you right and they are wrong? In fact, what evidence do you have to believe that any of it is literally true. What if Jesus is just metaphorically the son of god, who only metaphorically died for our sins, non-believers only metaphorically go to hell, and we only need to metaphorically believe in the ten commandments. You have no way to show that those passages are anymore true than the passages saying that we should keep slaves and murder all who don’t agree (like the witches). Your moderate religion is based on quicksand, you have no foundation to it, no way to know what is and isn’t actually in the bible. All a fundamentalist preacher needs to do is convince you that one part of the bible is literal (like the part where homosexuals are an abomination, or where we should kill the unbelievers) or that a different part is metaphorical (Jesus only wants us to metaphorically turn the other cheek). The only thing you can fight back with is your non-religious beliefs. The basis of the religion though is that the truths of god are superior to the truths of the world. So what defense do you have? Once you decide that the bible is secondary to worldly wisdom then you are already half-way to becoming an atheist. That is why I personally like and fear moderates at the same time. Because they have no base, they have in the words of the bible “built their house on sand” they can be pulled to rationalism or to fundamentalism. That is also why I admire fundamentalists on a level. At least they are willing to actually believe what they profess to no matter how unpopular it makes them. (I don’t like them, I just admire the tenacity and resolve).
Moderates beliefs certainly aren’t based on “shifting sand”. I would say that they have at least as solid a basis for what they believe than any “fundamentalist” (a term as loaded as atheist/agnostic). It can’t (and hasn’t been to my knowledge) be argued that the Bible doesn’t contain metaphor. There are examples so clear that every person I know who takes the Bible literally (and by the way you should really substitute the word true with the word literal as something can be metaphor and still be true) accepts them as metaphor. What every person who comes to the Bible, regardless of their beliefs on it, must do is to acknowledge that everything must be interpreted through several lenses.
I believe that this can be done and still result in an understanding of God’s truth for us. What most fundamentalists and a few atheists I’ve met seem to be unable to do is to acknowledge the fact that they are looking at the Bible through the lens of their preconceptions. That’s the difference between moderates and the two extremes. We freely admit that what we’re coming up with is an interpretation and I personally admit that I could be wrong when it comes to my interpretations.
For instance I think that you are wrong when it comes to your statement that the Bible is no more true than Dune or LotR. Those two works are clearly intended as fiction. The Bible is clearly not intended as fiction. Now we can argue which things actually happened as described and which didn’t. I don’t think that this is the space to do that, but I’d say that if you really wanted a convincing comparison to use on a believer, one that wouldn’t immediately make them ignore every word you say, you might pick a piece of historical fiction.
Another point, you call the stories of Noah and Jonah silly. I suppose by that you mean unbelievable. I’m not going to sit here and try and convince you that those events happened. If you don’t believe in God, particularly a God that steps in to human events from time to time, then I can certainly see how you would see them as silly. Personally I believe that the flood was a limited event. Others believe that it was global in nature. I also believe that if God wanted a man to be swallowed by a whale/big fish and spat out latter then this is no more difficult for him than bringing a man back from the dead. You don’t think it’s possible at all because you have a naturalist view. So again this is a case of bringing your preconceptions to the text.
Regarding tenacity and resolve, I don’t think that either of these are limited to “extreme” views. I think they are good qualities in anyone and I’ve known my share of moderate folks who possess both. They can and do defend their moderate beliefs against all comers. The internet is filled with such arguments. So I really don’t see your point. Again, a precoception on your part.
I agree with D’n about the moderates. You are supposing that moderates are not using a “lens of preconception.” They are reading the bible with some sort of open mind, rejecting what is horseshit, and still designing the rest to mean something it might or might not have been intended to mean. You admit you might be wrong about it, so this makes middle ground moderate god-believer better than the atheist or fundamental Christian? I think Mr. Miyagi has something to say about that. But hey, that’s not the bible, that’s just a movie, so what do I know.
If the bible is distinctly meant as a guide from your god and not some metaphorical fictional fable like those other literature and movies with good notions for living, and what its instructions are are not clear enough not to have to be interpreted through your moderate non-preconceived mind, that this interpretation remains loose enough for it to mean anything, and yet it means everything to you in the way that no other text can, and furthermore, you are fully aware you could be wrong about your personal interpretation, how is that not also a preconception?
You are labeling extremists for agreeing to it literally or rejecting it literally, and that’s too strong. I could actually probably agree to the metaphorical usage of the bible as long as it’s not a message from a deity and it’s just a book, cherry-pick with the best of them. Once you have rejected the extreme literalism and desire to ground your religion on wishes what it actually means, your religion is no more respectable than a fundamentalist version. I would even say you are attempting to intellectualize something that cannot really stand up to the treatment and examination, if your preconception is there is a god and this is his book and these are his instructions; they’re old and vague and fantastical – and I don’t think there’s anything too extreme with saying that’s all they are.
You are not without your preconceptions, you and other moderates are probably at least more pleasant and less frustrating to live and work amongst. You say that you all freely admit you are making up your own religion and yet you don’t see that’s what you are doing, tailoring this book to suit your personal philosophy.
You also think this is not your free will but somehow you are receiving signal from the big guy, so that’s why your version is superior to a fundamentalist, an atheist, or some other moderate who concludes something else from the text. You think your belief in god guides you to your destiny, what you do and what you think, and how you interpret his message from the text of the bible, not the literal words, his hidden, cryptic message, just for you. And that if you are wrong about that, you just have to focus more energy on your relationship with god.
And you can live with that? As someone who has rejected the “obvious” mistakes of the literal bible, this still sounds sane to you? I’m a neurotic atheist, I can call my conscience “god” too, and choose to get all my sound advice from The Karate Kid. There’s nothing you can tell me that will make your bible superior to mine. In fact, if there is a god, and he is cryptically and secretly communicating with us and determining what we do, then I choose to interpret Robert Mark Kamen‘s screenplay as part of god’s work, his word, and his guide for my life. Would you say that’s wrong?
“You are supposing that moderates are not using a “lens of preconception.” “
No, since I said:
What every person who comes to the Bible, regardless of their beliefs on it, must do is to acknowledge that everything must be interpreted through several lenses.
and
That’s the difference between moderates and the two extremes. We freely admit that what we’re coming up with is an interpretation
So since you apparently misunderstood what I wrote, and apologies if I wasn’t clear, I will say it again. We all interpret the Bible (and all other things we experience) through our own lenses. This is unavoidable. That’s why I think the notion that fundamentalists see all the text as “true” or literal to be BS. And you as an atheist see it was untrue non-literal not because you are somehow better or more rational than I am but because for whatever reason you don’t believe in a God of any kind. If you don’t believe in God I shouldn’t expect you to see the Bible any other way than you do.
I don’t believe that the Bible’s message is hidden or cryptic or that it’s only given to people through some sort of special revelation. It’s there plain to see. What you say it means or what I say it means doesn’t change its meaning. One of us is likely right and one of us is likely wrong (though I suppose it’s possible we’re both wrong) about that interpretation, but to say no interpretation is necessary is silly on its face.
I’m willing to admit that it’s possible I’m wrong. That’s not the same as saying I am wrong or that it’s likely I’m wrong, just that it’s possible. t would be refreshing I think for us all to be willing to admit that. For someone to say “There is no god, no question in my mind at all.” seems as disingenuous as a theist who says “I’ve never doubted god”
“If you don’t believe in God, particularly a God that steps in to human events from time to time, then I can certainly see how you would see them as silly. Personally I believe that the flood was a limited event. Others believe that it was global in nature. I also believe that if God wanted a man to be swallowed by a whale/big fish and spat out latter then this is no more difficult for him than bringing a man back from the dead.”
Lets not forget gawd meticulously erasing all evidence for its actions except for stories passed down from believer to believer and erasing the memories of any contemporary historians.
Lets not forget gawd meticulously erasing all evidence for its actions except for stories passed down from believer to believer and erasing the memories of any contemporary historians.
If you’re referring to the flood I’m not sure that all evidence for its actions have been erased and given the common flood myths it would seem that not all memories were erased.
*GHASP* You mean…. Lots of place don’t experience heavy rain sometimes unless it’s EVERYWHERE all at the same time?!
Dude, post “evidence” for the “great flood” and I will cheerfully debink it for you. Seriously. There isn’t any that can’t be torn to shreds very easily.
@Scott
Through what lenses do you interpret the bible? You say:
What every person who comes to the Bible, regardless of their beliefs on it, must do is to acknowledge that everything must be interpreted through several lenses.
btw I think you way of quoting is nice and so I am going to steal it.
What lens is this? Do you use the lens of modern thought, of modern morality? If you do, then you are saying that what is in your modern morality is superior to that which is written in black and white (or red sometimes) in the bible. What rubric do you use to determine what god actually meant? If you choose to use modern thought then you are saying that modern thought is more true than the bible. If you use any rubric to determine what is and isn’t true then you are saying that the rubric you use is more true than what the bible says. You don’t measure fabric with a ruler because you want to know how long the ruler is, you do it because the length of the ruler is more true than your guessed length of the fabric.
Noah’s ark, according to a creationist website http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html the ark was 3 stories tall with a total floor space of 101,250 feet. That is pretty big, but unless Noah used a shrink ray I don’t think he could have fit all the animals he knew about into that space.
ah, sorry, guess I failed at unbolding
Ah-hah!
I have been silently sifting through these comments on email and i couldn’t miss the opportunity to point out that it is impossible to read anything free of preconceptions and assumptions.
Thus the inescapable “rubric”, as you put it, by which we read the bible will naturally influence such a reading.
And d’n, why do you think that the way in which we read the bible assumes superiority? isn’t it a really big book with mixed messages?
Of course it is not possible to free ourselves of all prejudice when reading something. What we try and do is limit prejudice and take into account how the story was written.
When you interpret the bible as metaphor or literal based on a rubric then the rubric is more truthful. This is why I used the analogy of a ruler. When we take something and want to know how long it is we measure with a ruler. When you want to know how truthful the bible is you measure it with your pre-conceived notions. Let me use two examples to illustrate my point.
1. The flood. The bible says in Genesis Chapter six verses 17-21 NIV “17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.” ”
I added bold to emphasize points. Now in a previous post Scott had claimed:
Personally I believe that the flood was a limited event.
How did he, just to use an example come up with this idea? A local event can not describe what is stated as all life under heaven. What we see is Scott using a measuring stick to determine truth.
Scott took his measuring stick, probably simple rationality, and applied it to the bible. Scott measured the truthfulness of a flood destroying all life on earth, and the evidence against a flood destroying all life on earth. Scott decided that rationality was more true than the bible, thereby deciding that the bible story of the flood isn’t literally true. Therefore he believes that rationality holds more truth than does the bible.
2. God requires people to do some really nasty things in the bible. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NIV ” 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.”
Now, this is just one of the many passages in the old testament about murdering. God kills babies, orders genocide, orders the killing of witches, etc. I am assuming that Scott (to continue using him as an example) does not stone his disobedient children, commit genocide, or kill witches.
So why doesn’t Scott do these things? It is simple, he again used a rubric to determine morality. The rubric this time is modern morality. Scott took modern morality, which says that it is wrong to kill your children, and measured it against the bible which says to kill disobedient children. Scott again determines that modern morality holds more truth than the bible. Modern morality is true, and therefore killing disobedient children must be wrong. God must have meant something slightly different, or maybe it was all metaphorical, or even that it was only meant for those people and those times (though that still means you worship a god that orders child murder). Again and again you compare the bible with modern wisdom and decide that it is modern wisdom, not the bible, which is the most true.
This is where the slippery slope of fundamentalism begins. As a christian the entire basis of your religion relies on the bible being true. If the bible isn’t true then there was no Jesus and he can’t take away your sins and take you to heaven. Another major argument is that all morality comes from god. If pushed, every moderate christian will say that they believe that the truths in the bible are superior to the truths of the modern world. All a fundamentalist has to do is make them realize that they are saying that the bible is less true than modern wisdom and they will convert to fundamentalism. Really think about it. Is the bible the source of all truth? If it is then how can you measure it against reality and determine that the bible must mean different than it actually says. An honest fundamentalist measures reality against the bible and says that reality must be flawed. Hence young earth creationists.
The path of “some of the bible is metaphorical” leaves you no ability to argue truth to the bible. Let me show you an example.
Jesus is not the son of god. When he claimed to be he was speaking metaphorically. We are all sons of god, god being the creator of life. Of course god is only a metaphorical concept for nature. There isn’t really a god being in the sky, but the bible anthropomorphizes it so that we can understand it better. Sin is only a metaphorical concept for things that hurt other people. There isn’t any real judgment, just damage done by our actions. Jesus didn’t actually *die* for our sins. It was a metaphorical death. You see Jesus represents the good nature of every man. The good nature must be willing to die for others so that it can rise from the dead and conquer the evil nature. So, Jesus didn’t actually exist, he was an allegory for our inner spiritual journey. When the bible talks about being the inspired word of god it is just being metaphorical. It was written by people who felt the presence of something greater than themselves and they called that presence “god”. This god didn’t actually tell them what to write, it is like the idea of muses. A muse inspires us, but doesn’t actually reveal any truths. Heaven and hell aren’t real places, but metaphorical places. They are the mental states we live in when we choose to either live like Jesus or to live in sin. So you see, using metaphor, I have explained away the entirety of christianity and the bible to literally no more than LotR. Tolkien wrote LotR knowing it wasn’t literally true but putting many allegories of ways we should act. We should strive to be like Frodo and Samwise. Tolkien felt inspired as if his muse was speaking to him of a world that was real. I could make a religion based on Tolkien that holds every bit as much personal connection to the divine as does christianity.
So, to come around full circle. Do I have a point of view I bring to the bible. Yes of course. The point of view I bring to the bible is this. Suppose I know nothing. Suppose I have never learned of history, never learned of morality, never learned of truth. I find a bible and am told it has all of the answers. If I read it, what would I come to believe? Or to put it another way, imagine if aliens found the bible. This was the only information they had of our culture. They were told that we believed it to be the inspired word of god. What would they think we believe? When I take this approach to the bible I am appalled and horrified at what I find. That is why I left christianity. I read the bible to find out the mind of god. I read it from cover to cover. When I read it I did discover the mind of god, and that mind was unspeakably evil.
So, Scott, all the other moderates out there. I know that I have given a lot of arguments that sound like they could try to convince you to be hard core fundamentalists. This is not what I want at all. I would like you to do a few things, not for me, but for yourselves.
1. Read the bible as if it were actually true. Read the bible as if you know nothing about god, nothing about Jesus, nothing about morality, and discover what you find.
2. Compare what the bible says is true, to what you know in your heart to be true.
3. When they don’t match up, realize that it is possible that the bible, your parents, and your pastor could be wrong. People make mistakes all of the time, it doesn’t mean we are bad people, simply that we are mistaken.
4. Realize that just because the bible is false doesn’t mean you can’t believe in god. I know that many christians have personal feelings, intuitions and experiences that prove to them that god is real. What if god is real, but he is not the god of the bible? What if the bible was written by men and has nothing to do with the real god.
5. Discover for yourself who god really is and what he really wants. Don’t believe someone just because they claim to have the truth. Words are cheap, and many people will lie just to get you in their doors. Compare all religions with what is in your heart. If it doesn’t match up then throw it away.
I know this is a hard road. I myself have walked down this road, as have many others. I still have a deep seated feeling of a divine presence. I have come to realize that it is not Jesus, YHVH, Allah, Buddah, or Brahma. For me it is a sense of connection to the infinite cosmos, the realization that we live in a magnificent and beautiful universe of wonder and majesty. Part of me is a Taoist, feeling that there is a divinity to the cosmos. This feeling though doesn’t command me to do things. It doesn’t tell me who is good and who is evil. It is simply a feeling. The path for each person is different, and for many it does end in a rejection of all divinity. What is important though is that you learn to think for yourself, and to let god out of the box you have shoved him into.
D’n thanks for the conversation. I’d continue it, but I don’t really see the point. You’re making assumptions about what I believe and how I arrive at conclusions and you’re giving me bad advice about how to read (anything, not just the Bible). So this conversation is no longer beneficial to me.
I don’t value your form of pop-spiritualism any more than you value Christianity, but I appreciate your desire to show myself and the other moderate Christians out there the light of your way. I understand the need to share what I believe to be the truth with other people. What I don’t understand or appreciate is you using that as a weapon. You assume that I put God in a box and that I don’t think for myself. If a Christian said the same thing (and it’s certainly possible that it’s happened) imagine how that would make you feel.
I’d spend more time in this thread but honestly I think I’ve assisted in its derailment enough and I leave you to your discussions on the main points.
It didn’t cause me to become an atheist – something I always was – but it certainly showed me that I am, indeed, an atheist and that I’m not as alone as I thought.
I grew up in a social environment where disbelief is treated with distrust, almost like something is wrong with that person. To learn that there’s a helluva lot of heathens like me out there, and that most of them are alright, normal people, was quite refreshing.
I never understood religion. I grew up as catholic, even went for many years to a catholic school.
For many years I tried to makes some sees of it but always failed. They even sent me to some weekend camp around 12 years for some ritual and I was ashamed what I saw. People doing wierd things that never made any sense like singing silly child songs about some imaginary guy.
So I think that I always have been atheist, lack of believe.
And I also think that many atheists are atheists but have no clue that this word atheist exists.
Of course! I have only read the title, but, if it werent for the internet; how many Major Toms would ther be without Ground Control?
I was raised in a sort of secular atmosphere (lack of religion or discussion pertaining to or against) with a tiny bit of atheism pointed in, i.e. direct reference to religion and lack of belief in god, not in a silent, “get on with your other business” kind of way. I guess for most of my life, I didn’t concern myself with religion because I didn’t have one, nor god because I didn’t believe in one, nor atheism, because …. I don’t know why. I had some idea that religious people didn’t have nice things to say about atheists without really confronting it myself, and while I like being an atheist, I don’t like to think I’m trying to convert people or urge them to see how silly their beliefs are. Just like they think I may be evil, I think they may be stupid, and that’s that. I don’t want to get into arguments or be one of those “loud-mouthed” atheists who can’t say ‘boo’ without someone shouting their being oppressed and confronted with uncomfortable truths!
I guess in life, it just doesn’t come up that much. However, it is hard to meet other atheists in a secular world – who can tell if they are atheists or not? Christians and other religious folks certainly have no problem finding each other, and for the most part, feel proud of their beliefs and not censored. They say stupid things, like “I’ll pray for you” like it is nothing but a thing. They wear stupid t-shirts right out loud and proud. I have recently got into something on facebook where a friend posted an atheist video, and his Christian friend spoke up and laughed at the pushy atheist and insists she is not a pushy Christian (when clearly she is – I know her, and from what I gather, she puts atheists in a singular category of people who should logically not have anything to say, and so shouldn’t). This did get a few people’s backs up including my own to educate her somewhat, but she still is oblivious why any atheist needs to open their mouth at all – that if they are making videos, they are trying to convert people. I said no, believe in god if you want, if you feel secure in that, it’s ok by me. But don’t try to make this video into a pusher. Some people are looking for answers and atheistic videos and blogs helps these people find contact and answers to their doubts.
When I first got on the internet, I found things that interested me, and some of these things opened a little crack in the door, a freedom to somewhat anonymously discuss and argue atheism and religion, but that is not what I came for. I did like to know atheists are more common than I thought. I still feel there is some stigma in admitting to it in real life, where discussion on the internet is, or can be, less judgmental. It depends on the forum, whether it fully or partially pertains to the discussion.
In real life, if you’re not “evil,” you’re aggressive! For even saying, well, I don’t believe in god – the person having the conversation will start to fuss that you’re trying to push your beliefs on them, and STFU already. Honestly, this is unfortunate. If someone does know any atheists, it’s because they’ve been outspoken enough to say things, and so this reputation of atheists is that we’re rude and loud-mouthed and argumentative, because some of us are and the rest of us never say anything – and according to some religious people, obviously that we not only have no rights to say anything, if we are acknowledging religion, that somehow is in logical conflict with not believing any of it. The internet really opens me up, because if I don’t say anything, I don’t know what they are thinking about me or how I’m expected to behave either.
I’ve been on the internet for only a little over 10 years, and it wasn’t until this year that I really felt like exploring atheism in particular, who other atheists are, and how I feel about what I know about. I don’t know that I am in the closet, but in actual life, I don’t volunteer much. If someone tries to hand me a pamphlet on a public sidewalk, I tell them it’s garbage. Not much of an argument, probably doesn’t help represent atheists well at all, but I gotta be me. I don’t know if I owe the matter much more of my attention or if on behalf of atheists, I should try to stop and have a conversation that I’m pretty sure will be a waste of time. I haven’t had the nerve to say something anti-religious should someone blurt out “everything happens for a reason” or some other self-centered garbage while looking down on others, or ignoring the bigger problems of the world. I want to shout out “hypocrite!” but I neither want to make a scene or get into my own flaws. I get over it that everyone has flaws and for some, it’s religious ignorance. In this sense, checking the plank in my eye applies.
The internet definitely changes a lot of things for me, not just giving me access to other atheists who speak so well and carefully and thoughtfully, but I can hardly think of anything I don’t already know that I want to know, which I don’t immediately try to find the answer to on the internet. I’m not yet sure if atheism feels right as a “cause” to me, but I think the internet has helped people find allies and information, and feel stronger and not so alone, while they also make well-thought-out blogs, essays, and videos to speak out and share with seekers and doubters, to demonstrate how easy and normal it is to be an atheist, and that we’re not monsters, we’re not trying to anger and push, but a little provocation is obvious – we are telling you something that contradicts what you think you know, so yeah, it has the probability of making you feel defensive and condescended to if you’re at all religious. Good thing we’re on the internet where you can’t punch me in the face. I think that’s where the internet succeeds in these conversations.
My idea, is that the Internet is, unlike god, a proper noun.
I’m 47, and I cannot think of a time that I truly believed in a god. Sure, growing up Catholic I went to church weekly until the age of 8, then infrequently after that. Most of the time it was because my father told us to (I am the youngest of 8), or because it was the “right” thing to do (aka – my father expected us to, or the priest 3 doors down whom I delivered newspapers to asked me to attend). I think the last time I attended on my own was when I was 13 or 14.
So, the internet did not affect my belief system. Nor does it really affect my anonymity, though to be honest I normally use my online pseudonym when posting on religious/atheist websites – not for religious anonymity, but for general anonymity – I use the same name I use on tech sites, political sites, etc. I used me real name here. (Freudian slip time – the first occurrence of “anonymity” in this paragraph was originally typed as “animosity”. I’ll have to ask my psychoanalyst brother-in-law what that means…)
I’ve never been shy about my atheism, and always wondered why others were reluctant about theirs. But then, I was fortunate. Three of my siblings are also atheists, and the other four are not thumpers/evangelicals. My parents have also been very nonchalant about our belief systems. Yeah, my father required the kids to go to church weekly, but he rarely went. Xmas and Easter were our family outings (in that respect, I guess we would have fallen into the classic catholic family…). Even my ex-wife, who believed in a god of some sort, defended my right to my own beliefs (as I did for her). So my support system has been in existence my whole life. I did not need the internet for that.
But I can now see how the internet has been a great tool for atheists (as it has been for many, many other arenas) – the information available to those who want to know more, the support of those who are fighting the big battle with their inflexible families, and the anonymity granted is there for those who want or need it. My knowledge of Dr. PZ Myers, Dr. Richard Dawkins, and even Dr. Phil Plait and their various writings on beliefs exist because of finding them on the internet. This blog, as well as Friendly Atheist, STFU Believers, and many others are available to read various opinions and catch up-to-date news.
If it were not such a ridiculous statement, I’d say “thank god for the internet”… Instead, I will simply thank Al Gore*. ;-)
Tim Miller
Raleigh, NC
* Yeah, I know he did not invent the internet, nor ever claim to. He was an important member of the Senate sub-committee that helped fund the fledgling internet, so is truly entitled to that thanks. Of course, the thousands of others who were instrumental in its development are due their thanks, too.
There are more atheists because we are understanding reality more. I believe the Internet has helped a vast majority of people when its comes to questions. (news, sex, sports, religion, science)
Its the 21st century. People around the world are starting to see that religion is useless.
I think part of it comes from the Internet, in so far as atheists can troll as much as they like and not have to worry about a real life smack in the mouth when they go on the warpath against religion.
I think this is a very perceptive comment. Theists have historically done nasty things like ostracize or even kill non-believers. So, yeah, avoiding a smack in the mouth or even worse by the intolerant dogmatists was probably a very potent incentive against speaking one’s mind with regard to theism.
What I mean is we look at people such as Richard Dawkins who wants to take the gloves off and fight in some anti religion war, we have Sam Harris who wants to shame and embaress religion into science, we have Bill Mahar who is willing to lie and misrepresent religion to get his own way, we have Darwin Bedford who proclaims to be an atheist messiah and destroyer of faith, and we have misotheist cowards who hide behind their mommy’s computer who spread nonsense such as support for Mao’s extermination of religious followers. These people are a blght on atheists and it is an insult to call them as such. These are the new atheists, the militants, the ultra left wing antitheist religionphobes. If atheism is to survive these individuals must be singled out and exposed for what they are. They don’t even have any entitlement to call themselves atheist.
“These are the new atheists, the militants, the ultra left wing antitheist religionphobes.”
Are you saying that Dawkins is some sort of militant (whatever you mean by that) or indeed ultra left wing. Could you explain your reasoning behind such a statement?
Yes. Richard Dawkins has stated that he wants to take the gloves off against religion, stating that the hostile stance he has taken so far is too soft. He declares his crusade against religion as a war, and signed a petition to have parents who teach their children religion arrested. I believe this comfortably qualifies him to go from a simple lack of belief in any deity and more towards a desire to opress religion.
… and that’s ultra left wing then?
Any further and you would need to be looking at someone like Brent Bozell, who wanted a nuclear strike on Moscow.
Methinks you are confused about what “left-wing” means.
“He declares his crusade against religion as a war, and signed a petition to have parents who teach their children religion arrested”
Ya know, he doesn’t want anyone bombimg himself, this “crusade” is merely trying to educate people to think for themselves.
For the second part of the sentence, you are probably reducting it to absurd. But it would be arguable if indoctrinating your childs from an early age to deny the real world around them is, in fact, a kind of child abuse.
Dawkins wants people arrested and Bozell wants to nuke Moscow? Yea, methinks you might need to back up such claims.
Gladly. Brent Bozell II was a speachwriter for Jor McCarthy, the infamous anti communist scaremongerer. Here is a quote from Mick Foley on Bozell.
Around this time some people began questioning his conscience and his sanity. “He was my first realization that you could look wonderful and be bright and intelligent, clear-eyed and be totally bananas,” recalled John Leonard, who had worked with Bozell on the National Review. Bozell, you see, was a strong proponent of a nuclear strike on Moscow, and didn’t seem to care a whole lot about the consequences of that action. Said Leonard, “I just had this sense of a red-haired guy who could wipe out a city without really being able to imagine that there were people in the city.”
This video lays the claim about Dawkins signing the petition to arrest religious parents and I can try and find the source if you like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm1JYYIk-pI&feature=related
As for the statement that teaching children religion is child abuse, I would challenge that to teach children to persecute and attack those who do not think the same way like militant anti religion antitheists do is also a form of abuse. To teach that this behavior is okay and acceptable is something which should never be allowed.
@Nanci
Okay, I didn’t actually know who Bozell was. On reading about him he is not an atheist at all. Hell, he founded a catholic magazine called “Triumph” in ’65. So does this mean I should believe that all catholics want to nuke Russia? Your logic escapes me.
The video you use is not proof of anything. It doesn’t even quote Dawkins when it pulls the child abuse crap out of it’s ass. So, your stupid is showing. Now how about you try again to find evidence that he wants to send those who teach religion to jail. I searched myself. The best I could find was him claiming that religious teaching might be considered child abuse. Backing this up was claims from people who were mildly sexually molested by priests. They claimed that the firm pats on the buttocks and being forced to sit on someone’s lap was not nearly as damaging as the years of being indoctrinated in the church. Here is the article for you http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118 (that’s called evidence).
Is teaching religion child abuse. It is possible that the damaging affects to the cognitive and moral capacity of the children, as well as the feelings of guilt and self hatred, could be child abuse. I would like more studies on it before I claim it is damaging. However, that doesn’t make Dawkins a monster.
To go back to your original comment on this thread….Who the hell appointed you high inquisitor of the atheist religion? I’m sorry, but you can’t throw crap around like saying that the atheists you disagree with shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves atheists. You know, listening to your speech, and your mode of thinking. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that you are a poser. You’re most likely a theist trying to start a hate war against new atheists. Your speech sounds very religious like. Atheism doesn’t “survive” it isn’t a movement. Go back where you belong, your witch hunts will not succeed here.
Brent Bozell was an example of the type of nut job you would have to be to be deemed more extremist that Dawkins. No mention of him being an atheist at all.
As for the comment about being high inquisitor, who appointed the likes of Dawkins and Harris to fly the flag against religion? I mean, apart from themselves? Who has deemed those who follow religion as needing help, as opposed to being content in individual beliefs and leaving it be? Indeed, is the only way forward to cry that religion is evil and must be wiped out?
Nancy, the more you post, the less sense you make. No one “appointed” Dawkins and Harris to “fly the flag against religion.” Mere happenstance, good/incendiary writing, a strong critique of religion and media exposure brought them to the foreground.
Further, Dawkins, Harris, et al have a problem with the way that religion–particularly Christianity–has been used as a cudgel against the non religious. Indeed, it is the theist who has typically argued that the nontheist has no place in society. And even further, you’re cherry-picking Dawkins and Harris and saying that they represent ALL atheists, which shows a blazing ignorance of the depth and breadth of atheist writing on the subject of religion.
“As for the statement that teaching children religion is child abuse, I would challenge that to teach children to persecute and attack those who do not think the same way like militant anti religion antitheists do is also a form of abuse”
Are we persecuting and attacking anyone? You should have warned me! What am I doing at home when I should be at the streets burning churches?? irony off
We don’t persecute christians. They feel persecuted because, you know, they don’t want anyone to disagree with their beliefs while pointing out that those are based merely in an old book.
Here, this describes what I’m saying rather well.
http://angryaussie.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/atheist-bigots-shut-the-fuck-up/
What? I thought you wanted a fight. Oh that’s right, the only fight you want is one you know you’ll win.
Roger I see her using those words because she believes some higher power has to appoint everyone in a position of power. She has been lead to believe that only god can make someone a leader and to make the claim that a person appointed himself or was allowed to take the reins without a higher power doing it, is something she is afraid to look into.
Not at all. What I am saying is should atheism be warped into a belief of hatred. Yes or no? If yes, thanks for playing, we’re done here. If no, then we must look at why atheism may be seen as a belief of hatred.
“we must look at why atheism may be seen as a belief of hatred”
To be fair, we must consider if seeing atheism as a “belief of hatred” is our problem or it is theirs.
I would say it is an atheist problem because if we have a dyed in the wool fanatic screaming for religious blood then however wrongly it will fall back on atheists. It’s the same corralation that leads to portraying every Christian a pedophile because there was a priest who the church shielded.
There is going to be a lot of christian fundamentalists that will try to evangelize us, as it has been for all history. There is going to be a lot of religious people who will believe that we are devil’s tools. And that’s not going to change wether we are “radical” antitheists or wether we leave any public life. Do you want us to be ashamed f being atheists, and be recluded at home? Should we be afraid about saying how we understand the world and humanity? Not anymore.
@Nanci
Sorry, but atheism can’t become a belief of hatred. It can’t become a belief of anything. Atheism is not a church, it’s not a belief system, there is no hierarchy, there is no one who decides if someone is a “real” atheist. If there is any qualification to being an atheist it is:
Do you believe in god, yes or no. Yes then your probably not an atheist but we will still hang out with you if you are civil. No, then you are an atheist. Period, end of story there.
Atheism isn’t a belief of anything. Seriously people need to stop thinking of atheism in positivist terms. Atheism is a negativist statement, it is stating a lack of something. A positivist statement would be stating a gain of something. You don’t gain belief in atheism, you lose belief in theism. Atheism is just like a-unicornism, a-flat earthism, a-mind controlling space alienism, a-murderists. Unless you want to go out on a limb and declare that Dawkins is also making all of the a-mind controlling space alienists out there look bad you can’t claim he makes atheists look bad. Unlike christians (and apparently you) we realize that we are individuals with individual minds. What one atheist does has no bearing whatsoever on me. Atheism doesn’t have a creed that causes people to do anything. Only those with a creed can be held responsible for what that creed has caused people to do, only those who belong to an organization can be held accountable for what that organization does.
No, atheism isn’t a belief. It is however a group of people who have been misrepresented, by atheists, as not just lacking a belief in any deity, but actually hate god and religion and actively seek conflict to force it into silence.
“I lack belief in god.”
“Religion must be shamed and embaressed into silence.”
Which do you think more accurately portrays religion?
Nanci, what the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about which group accurately represents religion or which group accurately represents atheists? I can’t make head or tails as to what your argument might actually be. Are you saying that some atheists misrepresent all atheists? If that’s so, I’d have to counter with the argument that neither Dawkins nor Harris nor Hitchens claim to represent all atheists.
But they do. Whether or not they claim to represent atheists, because that is what they are people are going to see them, and others who in all fairness simply want to antagonize and hurt believers, and they are going to think atheists are like that. Atheism is the lack of belief in god. Okay, so why do people see atheism as wanting to take away religion?
Probably because that’s what people WANT to see. It’s easy to cherry pick people like Dawkins or Hitchens or even Sam Harris; it’s harder to actually think about their critiques of religion (especially Christianity) and deal with the internal illogic of monotheism. How ’bout this: don’t read Dawkins or Hitchens or Sam Harris. Read Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian” or George Smith’s “Atheism: The Case Against God” or David Mills’ “Atheist Universe” and then let’s have a conversation about atheism.
Oh, and another thing: where have Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris claimed to represent all atheists? I’m going to need a citation from you to support your above asserted claim that “they do.”
I never said they laid claim to representing atheists. What I am saying is people see the hateful bigoted antagonistic antitheists and they are going to see all atheists like that. A bit like how atheists see all Christians as Pat Robinson types who want to kill all gays.
Well, generalizing people is wrong, Nanci. It would be nice if people were exposed to more atheists, so everyone could get accustomed to all kinds of us. The problem lies in the fact that a very few are loud and proud and well-spoken, and the religious shut their ears and eyes. They have no problem opening their mouths.
Quite a lot of atheists are aware that sometimes nobody is open to listening to what we might have to add to a relevant conversation, and keep completely quiet, shy, possibly ashamed. This is not a good way to expose people to normal, average, everyday atheists like myself and others here, and others everywhere, or for a person to become proud of their atheism without having to engage in an argument.
We don’t want to force you to quit your religion, but we like to point out its fallacies and dangers wherever it applies. It seems some people are too sensitive, and their argument is atheists are pushy, hateful, etc. no matter what we say. So long as we keep quiet, they go on thinking wrong things about atheists as people (evil, loud, condescending), and atheism as a “belief,” or a “group,” who all do and think the same as one person said, and then when we go to say something, it’s always too much, too loud, too aggressive, too annoying, even too boring, and probably still think we’re too evil to have the same rights to free speech as everyone else in the US.
BIGOTRY is FEAR, and it is bigotry, Nanci. What do you want us to do or say to help change that so you and everyone can also be comfortable? Unfortunately, the whole process makes all of us somewhat uncomfortable. The internet may be helping our “numbers” as people feel less alone and not so afraid of bigotry, and where they can access information in the form of outspoken atheists you may not care for.
I just wanted to repost this in full from Francesc because it was very good:
What do I want? Well what I think would be good atheists is for them to be outspoken, to say that they do not believe in god, they choose not to follow religion. This is atheism. What atheism is not is trying to make others give up their religion, ridiculing those who follow religion, making theists uncomfortable about their beliefs. The further atheists can seperate themselves from this bigotry the better.
Nancy, do you think Dawkins attitude is new? Some quotes… http://www.bandoli.no/sayings.htm
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful” Séneca
“There are two classes of men: intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence” Abu Ala Al-Ma’arri, Arab philosopher 973 – 1057 AD
“Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.” Voltaire
“Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.” Voltaire
“The whole history of the Christian Church is a mixture of errors and violence.” Goethe
“The inspiration of the bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it.” Ingersoll
“It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” Mark Twain
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion” Steven Weinberg
“All thinking men are atheists.” [A Farewell to Arms] Ernest Hemingway
“Religion does three things quite effectively: divides people, controls people, deludes people” Carlespie McKinney
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” Diderot
So, we may want to reconsider calling Dawkins a “radical”
Oops! I forgot Arthur C. Clarke “I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent”
mmm…pretty similar to not wanting child’s indoctrination, isn’t it?
No I do not think this is new…Dawkins is simply the latest in a long line of bigots giving atheism a bad name.
If you think pointing out facts and telling the truth at all costs is bigotry, then you really must be religious!
“What atheism is not is trying to make others give up their religion, ridiculing those who follow religion, making theists uncomfortable about their beliefs.”
When theists stop broadcasting propoganda on television every night, when they stop controlling governments around the world, when their stone-age beliefs stop interfering with the lives of others, when they stop knocking on doors and shouting on street corners about how we’re all going to hell if we don’t follow their brand of fairy-tale, then I will live and let live as far as religion goes. Until then, I will fight fire with fire – and my fire burns all the hotter for being the mountains of evidence that fuel it.
Well, Nance, your concern is duly noted. I’m sure that your IMMENSE concern will immediately stop Dawkins or Hitchens from saying really strong things about the inanities of religion.
So, religion is hateful, bigoted and intolerant, and you think the best way to show just how much better atheists are is to be as hateful, bigoted and intolerant as religion is? Uh huh, yep, sure. This is exactly why atheists are hated..
Nanci Chambers, Concern Troll.
Or, Nanci Chambers, Concerned Idjit. I’m sure she’s somewhere, reading Dawkins and fairly clutching her pearls whilst retiring to her fainting couch.
I guess there’s no reasoning with bigots is there? I suppose when theists fight back you get all butthurt and scream like a bitch because you have such a big ego and a thin skin that you like to dish it out but can’t take it. This is what is going to destroy atheism, and the fact you willfully pursue your crusade to feed this dark pit inside you is sad.
As opposed to what? That theists are a parasitic species? That they do not belong here?
“you think the best way to show just how much better atheists are is to be as hateful, bigoted and intolerant as religion is? Uh huh, yep, sure. This is exactly why atheists are hated”
Can you explain me again why telling people -in a civil way- that they believe in a fairy tale -wich in fact, they do- is being “hateful, bigoted and intolerant”?
I don’t hate them, I just think they are wrong. As they think of atheists and any other religion or sect appart from theirs. At least “we” -if there is anything similar to a “we”- don’t believe that they were sent by a supernatural evil force to test our faith.
I’m not bigoted against religious people, I accept that everyone has a right to believe what they want. But I don’t want his beliefs to interfere with my public life. How is that bigotry?
I’m not intolerant, adult consenting people can choose to be as self-deceitful as they want. I’m worried about childs who will have their minds damaged because of fundie indoctrination when they are too young.
http://atheism.about.com/od/fundamentalistatheists/a/AtheistBigots.htm
Wow, I propose that maybe some atheists go too far in their attack of religion and get accused of being a troll and get ad hominem insults. If this is your reaction to a simple question how do you think those who follow religion see atheists when they continually attack and harass? Or don’t you care?
“Wow, I propose that maybe some atheists go too far in their attack of religion and get accused of being a troll and get ad hominem insults.”
No … lets go back and see what you said:
“These people are a blght on atheists and it is an insult to call them as such. These are the new atheists, the militants, the ultra left wing antitheist religionphobes.”
Do you deny that you posted this?
There’s atheists, and then there’s the bigots I was referring to. The ones who believe Mao’s execution of theists is good and just. Now I doubt very many atheists would think that killing those who follow religion is just, but as extreme an example as that is it is these people that give atheism a bad name.
So Richard Dawkins besides being ultra left wing also thinks that Mao’s execution of theists is good and just?
You, my lady, are just full of shite …
Oh lovely, tossing about flame bait. I didn’t say Dawkins believed Mao was doing a good thing. I was referring to this lovely quote.
“I know history. I know Stalin, Mao, ect killed millions. The thing is…I just don’t give a ****.
The ends justify the means.”
There is no debating that there are atheist bigots. It is atheist bigots who are a blight on atheism. Whether or not you care about that, well, I suppose that depends on if atheism being hated matters to you.
Does that really make sense to you? All kinds of women say stupid things I would never say all the time, do I think they speak for me? Do they make me look bad? What kind of person hears a stupid woman and decides then we’re all stupid? Maybe she’s not really stupid, but the person decides that she’s not that bright, or she must be on her period or something, and thus all women are loco. When I say she’s stupid, how am I defining that, how does it reflect on me, being another woman? That I disagree with her or that she’s actually saying something stupid? Do I disagree with her because I don’t want her to make me look bad? Hardly. Case-by-case basis, Nanci. When a man says it, what is his definition, is the ‘stupid’ or the ‘woman’ primary to him? Does he just call her stupid like a person, or does he add woman like it’s a special case of insult, i.e. a woman sort of stupid? What’s your take on this analogy?
I don’t care for atheist bigots like you describe. I don’t care for the sort of person who ascribes this behavior to all atheists, and that’s the reason they decide to hate atheism. I think I’m being reasonable here when I say that’s not a failing of atheism.
“There’s atheists, and then there’s the bigots I was referring to. The ones who believe Mao’s execution of theists is good and just.”
Which atheists are these and please can you post a link to the comment, oh and basically what Kodie said as well.
+1
Yes, please. Nancy, could you justify that the sentence
““I know history. I know Stalin, Mao, ect killed millions. The thing is…I just don’t give a ****”
is a signifiant sentence for any subset of atheists outh there?
Or are you just building an straw man?
She wouldn’t be talking about this by any chance?
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/c/c9/Typical_atheist_morality_640x78.PNG
Or this.
http://bn-in.facebook.com/notes.php?subj=737005433
Well there’s two examples. Given that atheists are hated above all else wouldn’t it be an idea to look at why they are so hated? It couldn’t be a simple lack of belief could it? Why else might they be hated?
@Nanci
You have got to be kidding right? You’ve found a comment from a single atheist and Richard Dawkins is therefore the anti-christ and all atheists are so hated because of this. I’ve seen some pathetic arguments in my time but yours is definitely in the top 5.
Nanci, you are getting close to the end of the list of logical fallacies that you’ve used, so get it out of your system and move on with your life.
I’m not the one wrapped up in some all consuming crusade. I tried, but if you’re so bigoted that you refuse to listen and instead resort to butthurt flamebait that’s your problem, not mine.
Nanci have you looked into history? How often has anger been used as a tool to get a message out? Maybe the atheist you are talking about do hate religion but if they were all nice about how they address the subject, do you think they would get any air time? With the desire of those running the media at this time, unless you have an angry message you seldom get the attention needed to get the message out.
Nanci, if religion had never given me a reason to hate it, I wouldn’t hate it. But it has given me ample reasons to hate it, so I do.
“Given that atheists are hated above all else …”
Yes in your little world they are, but in the real world they are not. Stop projecting your views onto others.
Nice, nice, nice, nice. You twist her words around, yell and scream when backed into a corner, and think being an asshat is justified because it gets you the media attention you crave to say how much you hate religion. Typical atheist bigotry.
Oh and atheists are the most hated people in America. You should feel so proud, they deserve every bit of that hate.
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/pages-3/Study-finds-Atheists-most-hated-minority-Atheists-dont-believe-it-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side.html
“Nice, nice, nice, nice. You twist her words around, yell and scream when backed into a corner, and think being an asshat is justified because it gets you the media attention you crave to say how much you hate religion. Typical atheist bigotry.”
Oh yes typical atheist bigotry and hatred I mean Nanci has already “proved” there is one atheist bigot that has posted something on the internet … not long now until she shows that all atheists are bigots.
“Oh and atheists are the most hated people in America. You should feel so proud, they deserve every bit of that hate.”
It’s fortunate that I don’t live in America then isn’t it which is one of the most hated nations in the world. You should feel so proud. I’ll say that because idiots like yourself and Nanci live and using Nanci logic that means all Americans are bigots and deserve to be hated.
p.s. So how long have you know Nanci then or are you and Nanci one and the same?
lol accusing me of being a sock puppet. What, can’t find anything else you can attack?
Oh, no name calling. Not like you’d listen.
Poor little Nanci … all the non-believers are being nasty to her by pointing out that her argument is really rather worthless. It’s just so lucky that you’re turned up isn’t it?
Oh and in case you forgot why do you think that the US is one of the most hated countries in the world.
“RAGE RAGE RAGE!!!!! RAGE RAGE RAGE!!!!! ATHEISTS ARE PERFECT IN EVERY WAY!!!!! OUR VIEWS CANNOT BE ARGUED, DEBATED, OR CRITICISED!!!!! IF ANYONE DISAGREES THEN THEY ARE DELUDED!!!!! IF ANYONE ELSE DISAGREES THEN THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON!!!!! FOR ATHEISTS ARE PERFECT IN EVERY WAY!!!!! AND NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY DISAGREE WITH OUR VIEWS!!!!! RAGE RAGE RAGE!!!!! RAGE RAGE RAGE!!!!!”
That’s about what you’re saying.
Please, stop yelling.
But you know I’m disappointed. I would have thought you’d throw in a conspiracy theory about me being an assassin paid by religion to hunt down and kill atheists or something. Your imagination is slipping.
[yawns] … you still here then? Oh hang on, I’m an atheist so I must be angry all the time.
Yep. 1 comment. In internet. Without ever knowing if that person was really an atheist (it doesn’t matters). Without knowing the context. With an awful lot more evidence I could say that all christians are pedophiles, but I know better than that.
@ Millliniummany3k:
I’m still waiting on the evidence you mentioned earlier. You’re surely not going to do the normal theist thing and talk about all the wonderful evidence but never actually tell us what it is, are you? Because I have to say, that gets kind of dull.
You post your evidence for God, and I promise I will review it objectively and dispassionately and give you an impersonal, honest opinion of it without insults, invective or ad-hominem silliness.
” … and give you an impersonal, honest opinion of it without insults, invective or ad-hominem silliness.”
Now that sounds a bit boring!
Methinks he meant actually facing up religious people, rather than staying silent, not actually burminating it. But then, what do I know.
I’m not actually an atheist, I’m something kinda weird. I have definitely found a place among the atheist web community. Personally the internet has helped me because it allows me to speak my mind without worrying about harming the relationships I have. My mother for instance keeps goading me with her insinuations that I need to come back to Jesus. I tell her to stop and leave me alone, but I don’t feel comfortable telling her that religion is a dangerous force. Unfortunately it will probably come to a head soon because she is sending my kids home with praying bears and Jesus loves you dolls (they are 4 and 5). I have told her to stop and if she does it again I will be forced, for their sake, to tell her off.
It is the internet that has given me not only the ability to see how many atheists are out there, but the courage to be able to stand up to my mother about this issue. I am a non-confrontational person by nature, at least in real life. I guess I am living proof of the fact that people act differently online. The internet I think allows thousands of subgroups of humanity to get together and realize they are not alone. It is not just atheists that the internet has helped. Hell, the Iranian almost revolution was broadcast over twitter. I wonder how well it would have worked without the internet.
i can only speak from my own experience, so: the exposure i’ve had on the net to other atheists and to the yec’s and other fundies have definitely made me a more militant atheist. it hasn’t affected my lack of faith in either direction but it has made me angrier @ the fundies and made me to feel supported by the community of people who have a world view similar to mine. the anonymity definitely plays into the whole thing as people spouting rhetoric contrary to my point of view seem easy to dismiss [ they're not even real people. look, his name is 'venomfangx' who does he wish he was? and what is he trying to compensate for?] and i find myself willing to berate them in a manner which is certainly rude and which i’d probably never use in real life unless i was trying to provoke a fist-fight. other people’s beliefs used to be far from my mind, a non-issue, if you will. if a guy was xtian or moozlum or whatever that was fine [for him] and i saw it as just a different way of looking at the world, life, etc. now i find myself looking at people of faith as delusional and primitive and worthy of ridicule for their superstitious beliefs. this is uncomfortable to me as many of the people who i love and respect are people of faith. the group polarization effect is definitely real and something that any self-examining person should be aware of while sharing their ideas or listening to those of others while surrounded by ‘like-minded individuals’.
oh, and the name is:
atheistlibertariancriminalasshole
[he he, anonymity]
Venomfangx is just batshit crazy. I think he’s great; he actually embarasses other theist into moving away from him and becoming more liberal :D
The internet didn’t cause my atheism so much as it provided a means to express it. My need to express it was mostly the incredible statements made by the Religious Right and carried by major media as though it was somehow more valid than reason.
IM GOING TO WRITE IN CAPITALS TO GET YOUR ATTENTION – ESPECIALLY NANCY OR NANSI… and THE PEOPLE TALKING TO HER.
PLEASE.
PLEASE.
PLEASE, APPEASE ME, PLEASE.
It is INEVITABLE that we will disagree eventually, BUT, there is no definitive TRUTH in anything.
SO.
Be REASONABLE.
e.g.
Athiesm is both good and bad.
right and wrong.
dawkins both represents and distorts.
he is right and he is wrong.
AND ATHEISM Is A BELIEF. LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE – LIKE GRAVITY, LIKE SIGHT. we are forced to believe, or not get very far.
Athiesm is both good and bad.
Excuse me? How is atheism bad?
right and wrong.
How “show me the evidence” is wrong?
dawkins both represents and distorts.
What exactly has he distorted?
AND ATHEISM Is A BELIEF
No it’s not. It’s actually a lack of belief.
how is atheism bad?
Have a look at my blog post on quantum entanglement and logic. It’s just a way of thinking about things. And it is my main methodology. please be aware, i am not saying one or the other, i am saying: two apparently contradicting states of affairs are in fact present simultaneously by virtue of your reasoning.
I beg, look at the blog, feedback would be appreciated.
I’m of the opinion, naturally, that atheism is the only way forward, however, it is the case that many will not agree – i.e. “religion provides morality” < now i would disagree totally with this claim under the notion that it is a horrific morality… but again many will disagree.
These are points without a quantitative balance (ESPECIALLY IN FORUMS AND BLOGS, because you do not spend an extended period weighing arguments, nor providing a quantitative measure.)
What exactly has dawkins distorted?
again, i see him as a word of truth, he is fighting a millennia old fire with new fire. He is outgoing, courageous and intelligent – however, his use of rhetoric will lead some to believe that he is distorting certain things (IN SOME PEOPLES EYES) E.G. religion is fake, religion is an illusion, or the name of his book (funnily enough) the god delusion < true to you and me no doubt but very rhetorical when used on groups of people, it will illicit a response from religious people, it does not provide any new information for you and me.
"Athiesm is a lack of belief."
tell me, do you believe there is no god?
or do you know there is no god…
but
surely, then, you believe you know: there is no god.
Thankyou for responding bender.
my blog is contained within my name
“There is no definitive TRUTH in anything.”
And that LIE right there is how the religious justify their beliefs. There IS objective truth – truth is simply that which describes what is actually real. God is not the truth, because God is not real.
I agree.
They formulate beliefs based on little evidence.
and god is not real.
However, they would have a hard time using what i suggested to shore up their own god/belief as they have demolished it by saying that.
I would ask, though, what is actually real?
That which can be measured.
I am tempted to agree with you.
However there are some things which are very misleading.
for instance we can measure time and it would seem all things change over time, but some things happen so fast we cannot apply a timescale to them, such as quantum entglement and some things at the subatomic level are not effected by time… more weirdly, time is different at different speeds…
We can measure the probability of a person committing a crime based on age, sex (bio), gender(social), race, environment. but really the conclusions are no more real than god… they are reasonable.. they are a good predictor but as for a statistical truth “one in ten of these people will commit a crime” that is fallacious.
Instead of writing several more paragraphs of phenomena where this mode of thinking is silly: “that which can be measured is real”
why not reconcile you words.
There are many things that are real that we cannot measure.
You confuse measurement with prediction.
Isn’t it a measure of probability…
You’re also misunderstanding the concepts of space and time, by the way. They are not different things; spacetime is one indivisable concept.
Ok. I understand what you are saying.
My point was articulated by Einstein himself. Special relativity.
And i am also proceeding from a quantum perspective which disagrees with some of Einstein theories.
And sorry, but you are wrong on your last line. Everything real can be measured. Look at the Higgs Bosun for a great example – right now we don’t know if it’s “true” or not. Hopefully the LHC at CERN will “measure” it – and when that happens we will know it’s true. If there is no way a thing could be measured, even in theory, then it is not real.
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.
Maybe there is a discrepancy on the definition of “real”.
I believe in monsters.
they are not real, but my belief is.
We cannot exactly measure my belief, only record it, matter of factly. (he has a belief in monsters)
Things may possibly exist in another dimension.
This may mean we cannot measure them.
Does this mean they are not real.
Maybe your methodology is a little dogmatic…
for as a timeless principle of truth… all things real can be measured… we really fall short of what is “out there”..
like my wiki love for you!
Custador, can you show me some wiki love please, it feels like im fighting rather than talking…
or more so, it’s not very enjoyable to talk to you when i have to read such hard responses…
You could just put the odd decoration =P
or something =)
happyhappyhappy.
“Things may possibly exist in another dimension.
This may mean we cannot measure them.
Does this mean they are not real.”
If something cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled or otherwise percieved and if it cannot exert any direct physical influence on this universe, then it either does not exist or is totally irrelevant to the discussion because it does not exist to us.
:D
So… There is other criteria for what is real!
“or otherwise perceived”
“seen”
“exert…direct influence”
Umm, regarding extra dimensions, not that i’m the bee’s knees on any of it:
It can be perceived. e.g. thought of, philosophized about.
String theory would suggest that the strings that permeate dimensions and have a huge impact on us. Strings are what give us matter, spacetime, quanta, radiation – everything.
and exist to “us”
to you?
I think really we must define what is real by a dichotomy: what is physically real, by which terms you have defined superbly. And i would agree on dogmatically.
And what is mentally real, or, we could say: perceived to be real.
This begs the question of is what we perceive to be real, real.
for i would not say that the pink elephants that plague me are real.
and when i take halluconogenic drugs, those elephants are not real.
But the happiness i feel is real.
When i wake up and i don’t want to go out, that is real.
I think this suggests that what is mentally real is defined by us.
For we can percieve limitless things in the mind, it is only what we tell ourselves is real.
Hence, god is perceptually real.
In as far as, god exists in the mind.
Is this an appropriate dichotomy? do you see why i have been debating with you, it seems to me what is real has a larger scope than what you suggested first.
God exists in the mind, but does he exist in the mind? A product of thought and imagination, yes? Literally there, no.
Some people would call this a mental illness. How do we know dreams exist? If you’ve never had a dream, can you be convinced that people dream, even though everyone’s talking about it? We can’t get in each other’s dreams to witness them, but we agree that humans dream, because most of us have personal experience. But we acknowledge this is imaginary. It’s both true and imaginary, because imagination is real, the process is. Can people live in your head? You can remember people, or picture what you think someone looks like, remember what they said, or invent characters whole, who exist in your mind, and perhaps communicated out in a story you are telling. Memories are real (they may not be factual), and imagination is real. When you meet someone and can’t stop thinking about when you’ll see them again, or that guy you hate at work who doesn’t go away after you go home, consume your thoughts and live in your imagination = real to you.
Now you take that voice of the person in your head and apply it to life. Robert Frost once wrote, “the best way out is always through.” I have this on a greeting card and found it taken out of context from a poem called A Servant to Servants. Does Robert Frost live in my mind? It is vague memories of poems memorized, glib quotes on a magnet or a coffee cup, some of which contain nuggets of wisdom or platitudes or both; which, to appreciate them or apply them to my life is on me. Mahatma Gandhi said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” First of all, must I? Do I let Gandhi live in my head and tell me what else I must do?
My mother said I’m a terrible housekeeper. She lives outside of my head and inside, I retain a behavioral response to a messy home attached to a disapproving voice that sounds suspiciously like the woman who raised me. A little neurosis! We are getting closer to god’s existence here.
If god exists in someone’s head, it’s either in form of accepting that someone somewhere said something that resonates with you – you accept it or not, or that person is affecting your behavior, your behavior which is real, or the gut response to stimulus (guilt, hate, etc.), all of which is real to you, but you would agree with the outside observer – it is in your head, and you can control it or respond to it accordingly. If you disagree, then you are possibly mentally ill. If you see spiders crawling on your skin maybe that person is lying to you that there are no spiders there (entirely possible, as in gaslighting), but maybe you have taken a psychoactive drug instead.
A good many people may “exist” in my head, imaginary and real, partial and possibly somewhat inaccurate and embellished. It seems most people agree that this is all neurons firing and how the brain works, with the exception of god. God gets a pass to live right inside someone’s head, as if literally, because he’s SUPERnatural, and breaks the rules of the body and brain. Or in the imagination like Harry Potter, or in a neurotic way, like my mother.
I’m really sorry kodie, are you affirming a point? making a point? debating?
I think you are pointing out that when i say god exists inside your head… you thought i meant it literally?
like a tumour?
HAHAHAHA. if thats what it was then.. yes he does, like a tumour. But only like tumor. HA.
Well, i meant purely as an idea. I was saying to francesc and custador..
there is what is physically real and what is mentally real.
and the essential problem, i think i said, the REAL problem is that what is physically real lies independently of us having to recognise it or believe in it.
In many ways i feel you are strongly affirming god as a cultural construct with what you have said.
Check out my blog, i suggest that we have created god, but we have made him irreconcilable.
KC, I’m really sorry to point this out but you’re going in circles and not grasping what I’m saying here at all!
You said:
“So… There is other criteria for what is real!
“or otherwise perceived”
“seen”
“exert…direct influence”
Umm, regarding extra dimensions, not that i’m the bee’s knees on any of it:
It can be perceived. e.g. thought of, philosophized about.
KC, I strongly urge you to think about what words mean before you answer, because you’ve completely twisted meanings to try to justify your argument, and frankly it’s silly. “Perceiving” something means sensing it with a real, physical sense – And if you can sense something with a real, physical sense then you can measure it.
That is not the same thing as “thinking about something”.
Dude, seriously, your twisting of meanings and wriggling around with poor semantics just reminds me of John C. Don’t do it man, it’s not a good look.
I c what you are saying, i misunderstood you.
i also suggested that it exerts direct influence. That should be appropriate.
Can we still reconcile this idea of real by creating a dichotomy based on the mental and physical?
I’m not debating. I get what you say is “real.” I’m really afraid of a supernatural occurrence (like up thread, you say you are afraid of monsters). I don’t believe in ghosts, but this fear manifests as some sort of remainder of a childhood trauma or too many scary movies and pseudo-documentaries – compelling and repulsive to me at the same time. I can analyze what’s real about it and why it feels real to me. I haven’t seen any ghosts yet and don’t expect anyone to believe me if I said I did.
If you are analyzing what god is, in the mind, really real to someone, that person may agree that it is a memory or thought impulse, to think of pleasant things like heaven, or remember how to feel when they see two guys holding hands, for example. They are probably more inclined to explain that it is more like the tumor, than to admit they just like to think their own thoughts in a compartment labeled something not-them, personified (like their old grandpa telling stories about the war and saying something cheesy but wise every so often, or when you found out he was a bigot and imagine how he would feel about a black president), or that they hate because they feel like hating, as a personal preference or a phobia, and that they want to save your soul and my soul as a compulsory act.
God literally inhabits them and guides them, like a propeller. When they are sick, the god is literally moving the hands of the doctor to write down the prescription. The doctor doesn’t just know these things, they are worked through him or her and manifested in reality to help the patient get well. The invisible hands jolt the foot onto the brake just in time to avoid a fatal collision. People are ascribing their hatred of someone as outside of their control, and no amount of education and exposure can break the reins of the god. Literally afraid that making themselves comfortable with their fears is against god’s word, and is a gate for devil thinking.
And lets say they don’t hate gay people, let’s use this as an example, what they really hate is that gay people are so willfully gay. This homosexuality is a disorder – what may happen to you if you do not have god steering you straight. So, some things are real to the homosexual (who they are attracted to, for starters), but a matter of mind they can change if they adopt a tumor named god to a homophobic god-believer. If you call a mountain a mountain, they will swear it is an actively spewing volcano, or it could become a volcano at any second and threaten the village. We have to outnumber the volcano so god can hear us and change it back into an ordinary mountain.
I am trying to say, that god existing in the mind can be real, but it’s not always to a healthy degree. Some people think if they don’t check the lock on their door 5 times, that it’s not really locked. Is this behavior hurting anyone? It could make them late for something, or annoy someone who is already out in the car, or agitate them if they only got to check 4 times, but if it’s not hurting anyone, go ahead and check the locks. Is it ok to read a book and feel you identify with the main character? I think that’s common enough, but some people start to dress like them (silly but harmless), and some of them commit murder (sick and also harmful). How sick is it to believe in god? Everything else is easily labeled a superstition or an illness or imaginary.
What Kodie said, ‘cos I’m too tired (and a little tipsy) to read it all but I trust Kodie to talk sense.
I hope you don’t regret that, nor the drinking. Wish I was tipsy when I wrote it for better. :D
Kodie, it is so long…
it’s like an aneurysm!
do you believe in god?
And what are you telling us?
mmm… middle ground fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Okrent’s law: The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.
I like this argument. Thankyou for posting it.
No, i do not believe what i have said corresponds to “an argument to moderation”.
I am in no way attempting a compromise, i am suggesting that two apparently contradicting states of affairs can be completely correct simultaneously.
It is not to search for the middle but the opposites.
for instance i could have said to you in this post.
Yes, i do believe what you have said corresponds to “an argument to moderation”.
I am attempting a compromise between two states of affairs.
The yes camp.
and the no camp.
Both are right.
Have a look at my blog (embedded in the name), under quantum entanglement and its implications for logic, (or under labels: quantum mechanics)
I read part of your blog the first time you wrote here, it’s interesting
I didn’t saw the post about quantum entanglement, so I’m going to visit you again :-), as i’ve been reading about fuzzy logic recently -I suppose it’s connected.
“i am suggesting that two apparently contradicting states of affairs can be completely correct simultaneously”
Indeed, even in 0/1 logic, if they were only “apparently” contradicting. And when we speak about politics, even if they are really contradicting, one being “radical” and the other one being mild. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)
But I don’t think that’s the case -a matter of opinions. I think that in our argument, Nancy and the rest of us are defending opposite views between “New Atheists” (wich we saw aren’t “new”) and “Atheists 3.0″ (wich are as old as humankind)
Francesc.
Thankyou for replying, i see in other posts you enable discussion.
Very nice.
I think your comments are relevant to what you understand i am saying, but miss the mark of what i am actually saying. Quantum ethics is an argument i have devised restating the way in which we think about right and wrong, left and right (political spec.)
it escapes relativism. It is not opinion. but it is. It is not true, but it is.
Once you read you will understand.
I hope you respond.
On my blog under labels (bottom-right) quantum mechanics. i will post the link if you still cannot find it.
I would like as much feedback on it as possible, as i have only had the opportunity to defend it against several people… not LOTS. which is what i need, discussion.
thanks again.
See, no wonder people feel stupid. In certain cases, it seems inevitable that you will be shown to be stupid, but you will choose not to believe it. And atheists are poopy doody-heads who make you feel stupid for demonstrating how you are wrong.
You can choose to deny gravity is true but still be compelled by its truth! Gravity is not an opinion you can have or not have. People who choose to believe in god are still compelled by scientific truth – truth which is true whether or not we have examined it to its utter depth. Gravity was true before anyone studied it and put a name on it. When it was called “god,” it was actually still gravity. Gravity is true for babies who never heard of it. It’s not something you believe in, it’s something which is, which can be demonstrated and measured. God is not something which can be demonstrated, and fails to be demonstrated. The supernatural explanations fail to explain or demonstrate anything. They are a stand-in for the truth, a place-holder, a warm fuzzy neurosis.
I like you prosaic style.
I like your point.
Gravity is true, but never-the-less a belief.
For if it was not, we would not get very far.
Gravity is true, and is true independent of us but if i did not believe in gravity i would die very quickly trying to do stupid things from high up.
Note the word stupid.
Already i have articulated my belief in gravity… it is “stupid” because i may fall and die.
the problem, the essential problem, is that very thing, truth is independent of us recognising it and believing in it.
thankyou for your reply.
(and why in the world is it PINK by my name… i feel de-man-ified)
You don’t have to believe in gravity at all. The bible says that one must not leap from a height of more than 15 smoots, and so was observed what happened to those who did were squashed and splattered most violently to demonstrate god’s will. Regardless now, we have airplanes, parachutes, elevators, escalators, cable cars, bridges, ladders, stairs, diving techniques, and if need be, really big trampolines to break a fall from a height beyond 15 smoots. But the bible says it’s evil, and I don’t want god to splat me, so I will stay on the ground until I’m called to heaven, thankyouverymuch.
I never heard about those verses, can you please reference them?
I’m sorry kodie, i don’t quite see your point.
I’m saying that we’re on the ground because god wants us to stay close to the earth until he himself lifts us up to heaven. Everything else is a sin. Gravity: I’m denying it (to make a point). Every amount of progress humans have developed to defy our earthbound status is an affront to our lord, and I’ll have no part.
As for other things falling, that’s god’s demonstration that down on earth is the righteous way to live, and he is replacing things that were up. The only time things should fall up is if he graces us and brings us to heaven. That’s what I believe. You can try to tell me about your devil-worship gravity all you want, but I know what’s what. People don’t fall; they are thrown, and from too high, shattered. That’s what you get for sinning. Stuntmen are the devil. If the good lord wanted us to jump out of an airplane, we’d have been designed with a parachute right out of our own backside. Monkeys climb trees, and I am not a monkey. Don’t even get me started on bungee jumping. Those people are thrown straight to hell, and their rubber bands mock our savior. Skyscrapers, elevators! Not what god intended!
I could deny gravity all the live-long day, regardless of how science proves otherwise, or how humans aspire to manipulate and overcome it. I don’t have to believe in gravity; I don’t have to deny, I never have to think about it. I can know a lot of things about gravity and still not recognize it, call it its name, understand the principles or believe in it. I put things, they stay. I can’t fly. I trip on my own feet sometimes and I never float away. I don’t know why rain only goes in one basic direction and I don’t need to know. I’m a little uneasy around chandeliers. I know which way I’m going if I fall and how much it’s going to hurt or possibly kill me when I land.
What is there to believe in? I’ve observed a pattern to the stuff around me, and act as though it were always true, but I can expect it to possibly change sometime, for some other mysterious reason. Is gravity false on the moon? If I were to wake up transported to the moon, everything I concluded on earth would not be true anymore.
…I’m still really struggling here… what is your point…
like.. in short?
with a brief reference to what you think i am saying.
You are saying you believe in gravity (correct?) “We are forced to believe, or not get very far.” I’m not forced to believe in it. It still applies to me, no matter what I believe or understand the evidence of gravity to be. I suppose as humans, we could not advance technologically without someone understanding the principles of gravity, proving it, and all relevant personnel agreeing to it. They agree to it because it is demonstrated. It applies to everything, everywhere, and this is demonstrated. If not, it would be as silly as my biblical understanding of why god smites anyone who travels above 15 smoots.
“Belief” tends to be a word used for emotional statements. Any writing teacher will train against littering your statements with words like I believe, feel, or suppose. They don’t convey fact; they convey what you accept as factual or close enough to matter to anyone, but that is the internal weight you give to it. It is more language than necessary for a true statement. “I believe people are good” can be true for you and false for me. “I believe in gravity, because gravity exists and is true,” is a statement I can also disagree with. Gravity exists and is true. If you are some woo-ey “below 15 smoots”er who believes otherwise, here are my citations, proofs, demonstrations. You are endorsing gravity like you are endorsing your favorite peanut butter. I don’t even like peanut butter.
I am not known for keeping it short, sorry. I hope that was easy enough this time.
I’ll just drop this link to Pharyngula which I think is relevant to this post.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/kings_and_queens_of_the_ther.php
I especially like the cartoon. It sums up this whole “New Atheism” nonsense.
I like.
Win.
Normal person + Anonimity + Audiance = Total fuckwad
Where did good old Nanci run off to?
I’d say she chose not to deal with those who are unreasonable.
… and I would say that her argument was so poor even she realised that is wasn’t worth carrying it on. Then again maybe she’s carrying it on under a different name?
lol at the atheist troll who cannot formulate an argumant and instead has to accuse others of being devious.
So you agree with her argument that because an atheist was nasty on the internet Dawkins is the anti-christ and one step away from wanting to nuke Moscow because he’s ultra left wing?
I never said I did agree with the way you’ve twisted her words around. I just think atheists have their heads so far up their ass they think no one can possibly disagree with them, and will use every dirty trick in the book to convince themselves of their superiority.
All atheists?
We are all the same.
Apparently so! No atheist thinks, eats, or even breathes differently than other atheists! We’re, like, the Borg or something. “You will read Dawkins and hate all religions. Resistance is futile.” Certainly, bloggers like Hemant Mehta over at friendlyatheist.com or even our own Daniel Florien are lying when they say that they engage people of religious belief in a charitable way and have no desire to oppress or eliminate religion. They’re the Cylon sleeper agents of atheism. Right milliniummany3k?
Hmmmm. Methinks you’re confusing atheists with Christians.
Nope, atheists. It’s sad really, faith cripples are really deserving of pity rather than anger.
LOL! You, a person with their capacity for rational thought detuned from reality, feel pity for us, people who only believe in what’s real? Dude… Weak!
“Faith cripples”? That’s creative. It’s like calling Christianity “the Collective Judas”.
So you don’t agree with her/you then but you disagree with anyone one who points out that she/you is talking out of their arse?
Actually, can you expand on something you said? How is asking for evidence of a thing that YOU claim exists (despite the fact that neither you nor anybody else has ever seen it) a “dirty trick”?
Because when presented witrh evidence suddenly it doesn’t count, or it’s biased, or when said evidence cannot be questioned then atheists resort to personal attacks.
Besides which, you keep thinking I’m religious. Point out where I have said this.
Well, then don’t be coy.
I don’t go along with fuckwads, so that rules out pretty much everyone, whether they be religious or atheist.
“Because when presented witrh evidence suddenly it doesn’t count”
I personally have never seen amy evidence for God, ever. Feel free to show me some, you’d be the first.
I don’t go along with fuckwads, so that rules out pretty much everyone, whether they be religious or atheist.
It’s so lonely at the top.
trolling, trolling, trolling … trolling, trolling, trolling … raw hide … get ‘em up, get em in …
“I don’t go along with fuckwads, …”
That must make family get togethers a bit lonely …
In my view. Which of course you will find erroneous. millinniummany3k, Jabster, Custador – specifically, all of your views are correct and incorrect at the very same time.
By the nature of how we consider things, they are correct.
However, another person would perhaps consider the state of affairs differently. Your arguments for instance, but you beliefs also. Really, any approach to denying the other persons considerations, thoughts about things, arguments, is in very essence correct and incorrect. They are both adequate uses of logic but used in different ways.
Please look at my blog (it’s hyperlinker via my name), under quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics (QM) is only used as an analogue for expressing what i am trying to say. This form of logic, which it is, that things are right and wrong, correct and incorrect at the same time, has it’s sustenance in the QM idea.
Simply, it’s not that we cannot tell who is right and who is wrong.
We both are. This is not paradoxical. It’s just a feature of logic, that we assume one negates the other.
So communicate. Don’t fight.
Understand.
Don’t quibble.
Wikilove.
Don’t wiki hate.
Collaborate. =)
Seriously, KC? Recognize that Nanci’s framework may be a unique framework to Nanci, we got some other “new” guy calling us fuckwads from the get-go…. Seriously? Nanci doesn’t know how to put an argument together. If she’s got something to say, she hasn’t said it yet. Has she backed us into a corner like millinniummany3k says? Is there any truth possible to that statement, just because it is in millinniummany3k’s special framework? I mean, a truth that matters to anyone but him (or her)? Why should we recognize his framework if it is demonstrably wrong in an actual discussion we’re having, not your planet of philosophy.
Right and wrong mean things; true and false mean things. If something is true in Nanci’s framework, she has done a piss-poor job of demonstrating what it is, instead, relying on canyons of logic. We would surely be able to see Nanci’s perspective if it made any sense at all. If she thinks we think we’re all smarter than her, that might be the only sensible thing she’s asserted, so far. I mean, that’s not really our fault or responsibility to make her believe she’s smarter than she is.
Her logic his horrific i agree. But she thinks she makes sense. That’s what im getting at.
You dont agree with my philosophy, but i consider that nanci is also talking dribble.
We probably agree with msny tenets of ideas.
Freedom, democracy (probably NOT in todays context, which is a bit elite- i.e. we do not get satisfactory say in the political process nor do people come before the economy) some sense of secularism in politics – self respect.
i dont know.
But im not trying to divide.
@Kodie
“If something is true in Nanci’s framework, she has done a piss-poor job of demonstrating what it is, …”
I’m really not sure what here point is at all … is she expecting us to trawl the internet looking for atheists that “disrespect” religion so we can give them a good telling off? If so she’s done a really bad job of explaining what she means.
Oh and before I forget who remembers who said this …
“What’s wrong with killing babies? I see no problem with it. I have enough mouths to feed. I don’t get the argument and I am an atheist. Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in anything characterized as good, bad / right, wrong. So, what’s the big deal?”
I believe that one was one of John C’s false identities.
I suppose that would depend on whether or not you believe in morality and right and wrong.
Did Hegel suggest that right and wrong are not moral categories?
Something about a dialectic?
Hegel called morality the subjective recognition of universal abstracts.
He was also wrong.
I think the Internet has given rise to a number of instant experts, those who think they are so clever to cherry pick a few strawman arguments and present them as the norm. That doesn’t make you clever, you pump up your ego that way or use these arguments to beat over the head with it makes you stupid. The more you do it, the more clever you think you are doing it, the stupider you get.
I think, in a way, that’s reasonable.
Especially concerning religion. It is such a vast, diverse, and sometimes considered ineffable, subject, it is near on impossible to argue with cogently.
Also, someone does not need a reason to not believe in god.
Really, theists do not need a reason, either, to believe in god.
When it informs our decisions, when it manipulates our ethics, when it creates behaviours (im talking worship etc) then it should be substantiated, else it seems a little delusional.
I miss nanci.
She was hilarious.
Well you’re gonna have to go back trolling religious forums to get that thrill of hurting those who arn’t the same as you.
Who?
I don’t think nanci was thilled!
Bet you get sexual kicks from it though. Go around hurting those who think differently to you and get a hard on from the reaction.
Reiko, you’re a very strange person. I think you should get help, or at least some lithium.
If I hurt others for sexual kicks and twisted about the words of those who do not think the same as me, I would agree I need help. That however is someone else here.
“If I… Twisted about the words of others who do not think the same as me, I would agree I need help”
So we’re agreed then. You need help – because that’s exactly what you did.
I don’t think Nanci said whether or not she believed in god. She seemed to have some idea atheists were bigots because she heard somewhere that they were, like an email fwd or something. I don’t dispute that some people are bigots who are also atheists, but what has that to do with anything? She couldn’t pull a decent argument out of ass if it had a string on it, that’s all.
She implicitly declared herself as an atheist once or two:
“I would say it is an atheist problem because if we have a dyed in the wool fanatic screaming for religious blood then however wrongly it will fall back on atheists”
“What do I want? Well what I think would be good atheists is for them to be outspoken, to say that they do not believe in god, they choose not to follow religion. This is atheism.”
…now I believe she was a theist, I my be wrong.
Anyway, Reiko’s comment was out of place and probably directed to the wrong person.
That’s because you twist her words to suit your argument.
@ Francesc: I thought she implied that she was an atheist, but I also thought she was lying because of her basic misunderstanding of atheist mindsets.
@ Min Krysa: Aside from the fact that I disagree with you, would you claim that religions and the religious never twist words or meaning, or say that they don’t play semantic games all the time?
Being better than theists is the point. Or do atheists share all the same ills?
well, we’re all human…
“Being better than theists is the point. Or do atheists share all the same ills?”
No, we are more intelligent, more handsome, with more sense of humour and a lot more successfull in life and love than theists are autoparody off
.
It just happen that “we” (there is not a we) don’t have a belief in a fairy tale, but “we” could have other irrational beliefs -as new age woo- and still be “atheists”.
“Bet you get sexual kicks from it though.”
Care to back that up then?
Why would I bother? If you saw Jesus on the cross and could actually feel the nails digging into his flesh, you would deny that the wounds were there. Atheists who sympathize with those who follow religion are branded as traitors and going over to the enemy. You’re too childish to handle any form of explanation or evidence.
“Why would I bother?”
To prove you weren’t just pulling stuff out of you arse maybe or maybe even to show you had some sort of intellectual integrity. Can you think of any other reasons?
“You’re too childish to handle any form of explanation or evidence.”
Go on humour me give it a try … by that I mean post some evidence, but wait you can’t can you so you got your excuses in early.
Another troll we should stop feeding, Jabster? I think I was right when I said yesterday that there seems to be some sort of concerted effort by fundies at the moment to come here and post bullshit…
@Custador
I think again you maybe right …
“If you saw Jesus on the cross and could actually feel the nails digging into his flesh, you would deny that the wounds were there”
I wouldn’t.
And eventually I’m goin to learn
how to use on this blog
Oh, the irony.
And it seems more delusional when it is on the “god side”.
At least, for me.
Yes, the Internet has caused the new atheists. Safely hiding behind their mommy’s computer anyone can flex their e-muscles like impotent beach boys for all they’re worth.
Define “irony”…
That is what is meant by the phrase “the pot calling the kettle black.”
Well yes. I’ve no desire to be ostracized or lynched by rabid theists (though all my friends know I’m an atheist). Atheism is that it requires neither sacrifices nor martyrs. :D
So you willfully admit that screaming for religious blood is going to upset people, and you’re too much of a coward to do it out in the open so you have to do it from the refuge of a computer screen. Pathetic.
That butthurt feeling you have right now…crying’s only going to make it worse.
Being an atheist out in the open (in a lot of circumstances) is going to upset people. Where you made the mistake was equating atheism with “screaming for religious blood.” Quite sadly, a lot of theists make the same mistake. Nice try, but we are not dummies.
So you willfully admit that screaming for religious blood is going to upset people, and you’re too much of a coward to do it out in the open so you have to do it from the refuge of a computer screen.
Not my fault religious people are so easily offended that “I don’t believe in fairytales” becomes “screaming for theist blood”.
Pathetic.
I’d rather be pathetic and alive than brave and dead. I am nobody’s hero neither need to be, buddy.
That butthurt feeling you have right now…crying’s only going to make it worse.
Don’t worry. I can handle it.
I hate religion. It is evil and must be wiped out no matter how many have to die to achieve that goal.
I call reverse-poe
yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if “he” shares his IP with a previous religious commenter
Correct. I posed as a few fundie morons and posted some idiotic arguments to make them look stupid, as if they needed help in that regard.
Anyway, the problem with religion is that there are those who choose to follow it. Get rid of theists, you get rid of the problem.
…or you could be lying now, how do you expect anyone to believe you?
If what you said is truth, it would be not only a disrespect towards theists but also towards commenters on Daniel’s blog.
Well I want to be disrespectful. After all anyone stupid enough to believe in some make believe fantasy character deserves no respect.
1.- They deserve respect as human beings. Wether their ideas deserve respect or not is arguable.
2.- That answers your disrespect to believers in general, what about your disrespect to us -in particular to me, of course- followers of the blog?
Prove that what I’ve said is disrespectful to atheists, or you’re making it up.
You’ve been disrespectful in that you pose as someone else and waste everybody’s time, and in that you attempt to make both theists and atheists look bad under false pretenses (why you do it for both parties is beyond me, except that you obviously like to troll).
You’re a dishonest jerk, and I recommend you be banned for sockpuppetry and trolling.
@dorkmanscott – is this you? http://boards.theforce.net/the_senate_floor/b10320/28678816/r29976779/
The quote you posted by someone named stalkinghorse was deleted by moderators: “Aside from all the myriad other problems with this post, it’s an off topic comment,” and was a singular post made as an obvious troll. It was too easy to find.
And this? http://boards.theforce.net/the_senate_floor/b10320/28678816/r30602236/
I liked this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NE5elL30w4
I didn’t watch the second one yet.
Anyhow, I found this:
If Atheists Ruled the World
http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteArchives.aspx?Archive=1
Each quote is linked to the forum where it appeared, so you can see how it fits in context.
That he would go to such lengths speaks volumes about his obsession.
Well trolling’s my hobby. I don’t care how many people get hurt doing it, I like hurting people.
Over the internet, where you are totally anonymous and thus safe from reprisal.
Chickenshit.
This was in fact the point I was trying to make before. Some monster troll, who uses atheism to piss off as many people as he can. Marganalizes atheists a little don’t you think?
Good, then you and Christ are in agreement as He hated “religion” too. Keep up the good work! :)
Would you care to provide a source for that statement?
All through the NT we see Christ reserving his harshest rebukes, strongest words for the “religious” leaders of the day who oppressed the people and made numerous burdensome demands on them turning them into “twice the son of hell” that the same religious leaders were. (Matthew 23:15). He is constantly at odds with them.
Christ didn’t come to offer religion for it is a dreaded, dead thing and the world would be much better off wiithout it.
This was due to religious experts becoming self rightous and hypocrites. Like atheists have become. Instead of choosing not to believe in god, many flat out state that there is no god (therefore ceasing to be atheists as this is a belief of faith). The criticism came from these so called holy men acting unholy, much like an atheist might disregard logic and reason to act as a monster troll and hurt those who do not think as they do.
If you feel hurt by someone stating that there’s no god, then maybe you’re thin-skinned. Anyway, you’re free to ignore, disregard, or oppose their opinion.
Making blanket statements about atheists being hypocrites and monster trolls who disregard logic and reason – sorry, that’s a pathetic argument.
Using that logic there is no right to whinge about the likes of Pat Robinson or preaching against atheists, unless of course it’s one rule for you and another for everyone else.
Of course we change the rules to make atheists look good and religion look bad. Are you honestly that retarded to not understand that?
standalone, Pat Robertson is a fucking idiot and an extremist. You can’t seriously be comparing him to average atheists – or average theists, for that matter.
Anyone is allowed to call Pat out for the moron that he is. The same applies to any atheist who may behave in a similar manner. But you seem unable to grasp that very few atheists do this – or maybe you realize this and it’s just convenient for you to pretend that all atheists are raving monsters “screaming for religious blood”.
I’m calling out atheists who get all butthurt about the criticism of religion hating bigots. I know just how desperately you want it both ways but you look pretty retarded to demand exclusion from having the likes of dorkmanscott picked apart as you claim all priests are pedophiles.
“Yes, the Internet has caused the new atheists. Safely hiding behind their mommy’s computer anyone can flex their e-muscles like impotent beach boys for all they’re worth.”
Nice to see Standalone still hasn’t grasped the irony.
“I’m calling out atheists who get all butthurt about the criticism of religion hating bigots.”
Thing is, Standalone, if religion didn’t harm me an awful lot more than it helps me (as an Englishman, I’ve been bombed by Catholics and by Muslims, but never by atheists) then I wouldn’t hate it. I would love all religion to be gentle, harmless stuff that keeps itself to itself – but it can never be that way. As soon as you convince people that they have the only viable knowledge of God’s will (which is pretty much what all religions say) then it’s only a matter of time until the zealots start to appear – and we all know what happens when fundamentalism rears its ugly head – stuff starts to go BOOM.
“I know just how desperately you want it both ways but you look pretty retarded to demand exclusion from having the likes of dorkmanscott picked apart as you claim all priests are pedophiles.”
Dorkmanscott is a troll who poses as either a fundie Christian or a fundie atheist, depending on which will cause the bigger argument. Several atheist commentators on this blog have suggested that his IP should be banned for trolling and sockpuppetry – however, that decision is ultimately Daniel’s. Personally I just ignore him because I think everything he says is tainted by his earlier actions and I don’t trust that he actually means it – I think he’s just shit-stirring.
“you look pretty retarded to demand exclusion from having the likes of dorkmanscott picked apart…”
Are you blind, standalone? dorkmanscot behaved like an idiot and several of us called him out on it. Noone has defended him. How exactly is this a double standard on our behalf?
Thing is, I don’t go about bragging about how superior my beliefs are. I don’t say we must go after everyone eho disagrees with me. You asked the question, I answered. You don’t like it, too bad.
You asked the question and it was answered. If you won’t like the answer you get then why ask the question in the first place?
Um…well…you see…we were only wanting atheist replies. The truth is we are rather weak and when atheism is confronted we simply are unable to defend our hatred of religion.
I see the Internet as providing an avenue for atheists to answer the rallying cry of atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Mahar and others to move from atheism in the strictest sense of the word (disbelief in a deity) and more towards direct opposition and persecution of religion, anti theism, militant atheism, theophobia, anti religion, whatever description you want to use to describe those who take Darwin Bedford’s line “If Jesus return let’s kill him again” and run with it.
I don’t think they’re interested in rational discussion. I think they want a fight.
I don’t understand how religions don’t just get laughed out of the room by everyone today. I really want to believe that there are a majority of humans who are able to think, but I just keep seeing more and more people who are against the truth.
It’s just going to keep happening as long as people keep teaching children their stories.
Most atheists that i know and hear are like an abused person. Religion doctrination became this abusive representative of god, that came along and forced itself on the individual. The internet indeed has opened the emergency room.
I agree with you 100 percent.
The internet also provides atheist sands in their vaginas, so they are pissed and have a pep rally on redddit’s r/atheism board.
D- must try harder …