In reply to this comment by smooman:
>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I mean without faith what do you have?
>> ^smooman:
ps: shinyblurry, science has, quite conclusively, proven that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old....but thats neither here nor there. You at least recognize that it doesnt matter (as do i), as it pertains ones personal relationship with god.
The bible wasnt written to tell me how old the earth is =)



Err... Evidence and critical thinking?


while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis

i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious

we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact


ok..now i want to have YOUR babies.
pegg is gonna have to go it alone.
right on man.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I mean without faith what do you have?
>> ^smooman:
ps: shinyblurry, science has, quite conclusively, proven that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old....but thats neither here nor there. You at least recognize that it doesnt matter (as do i), as it pertains ones personal relationship with god.
The bible wasnt written to tell me how old the earth is =)



Err... Evidence and critical thinking?


while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis

i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious

we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact

>> ^MaxWilder:

Nope, sorry. Disagreements about theology is not a good reason to cut off family. Suck it up, keep asking for them to respect your beliefs, and keep educating yourself to more intelligently and politely refute their claims when they disrespect your boundaries. That is love.


I agree completely. But, I know this isn't always possible. But, you can remain civil and try to add "ideas" with "facts" to conversations. Try to let truth bridge that void (truth as I've seen acts much like water; it fills voids, cracks them open, and allows you to be truthful). As I've learned countless times you have to let them find the truth for themselves. The nail is already hammered; hammering won't work.

>> ^westy:

This is pretty retarded "we have nothing more to talk about "
cheesy editing bad music comes across as one of them retarded Conservative political infomercials , If this is intended for Christians to watch they will turn it off right away and i'm not really sure how its constructive for atheists , i'm sure its not that hard to highlight idiotic parts of religion and people that follow religion without coming across as non communicative and confrontational.


I agree, mostly. It's a bit heavy-handed and over-produced; it probably would have been more impactful without the music and without all the footage of the actress typing her letter.

As a lifelong atheist of secular-minded, deist parents I cannot fully empathize with this video's perspective but I know that for many others, it hits home. I can't imagine how ridiculous it would be to really have to argue about the merits and historical accuracy of the bible with my own parents.

However, my father, a retired high school science teacher, recently had a weird bout of moon-landing hoax conspiracy fever after watching a video of that jackass who confronted Neil Armstrong with a camera crew and a bible, demanding he swear that he really walked on the moon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znzoVcjS2IA&NR=1 Apparently, he found it rather damning in favor of the hoax.

I humored him for a while. In fact, for his birthday, I got him a bunch of books about the moon landing, just as a joke. His being a science teacher with a masters degree made it especially weird. But it got to the point that that's all he wanted to talk about so I said, "look, during the two times a year we see each other, I'd prefer that those times go smoothly. If you feel the same, you'll not raise this topic again." And that seemed to do the trick.

I can almost understand someone believing the moon landing was a hoax. But that the stories in the bible are true? That's just puerile silliness.

>> ^bareboards2:
As the person who wrote the description, let me assure you that you have interpreted the "they" incorrectly.
I meant crazy fundamentalists who have a deep need to control the world. Regardless of what religion.
I copied the wiki article and pointed out that this sentence was a deep relief to me: Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.
So there is my proof that this is what I meant.
I am also not an atheist. I believe there are things we can't possibly understand with our puny restricted human brains. I respect the personal choices of individuals -- I would never argue someone out of their personal experience of the divine.
What I don't like is when someone uses their personal experience as an excuse to control others, to define "morality" for others. This guy. Mormons working tirelessly on Prop 8. Parents trying to keep any mention of homosexuality out of schools, which perpetuates the bullying and the shaming.
And I believe that when atheists attack someone's belief as irrational, it is no different than a Christian attempting to force their worldview on the atheist. I think atheists take their justifiable anger at Christians attempting to -- and succeeding at -- controlling others through shame, laws, wars and go too far with it -- I don't believe it is necessary to talk someone out of their personal religious experience, IF IF IF that personal religious experience isn't affecting the atheist in any way. I think atheists need to learn to let folks be, and focus on facts -- overturning Prop 8, booting fundamentalist School Board members out.
Them there's my two cents. Sorry you have felt beat up here. The Sift is a great place, with some really really REALLY smart and funny people. Including some, in my opinion, angry atheists. It is part of the Sift's charm, if you can treat it like entertainment.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting

The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.



That's cool.. thanks for enlightening me here. I didn't mean to cast aspersions but I guess that shows how easy it can be to misinterpet peoples intentions/beliefs, which really underscores your point I think. I wouldn't say I feel beat up, just that there seemed to be a tone here. I'll go with your assesment for now.

Personally, I don't tell people what to believe. That is what free will is for. It's up to them to draw their own conclusions. If someone asks, I will answer. If someone is mistating, I will correct. Other than that, to each his own. I will speak the truth as I know it, and hopefully someone will listen, but that's as far as I go. If you try to force something on someone, it just pushes them farther away.

As the person who wrote the description, let me assure you that you have interpreted the "they" incorrectly.

I meant crazy fundamentalists who have a deep need to control the world. Regardless of what religion.

I copied the wiki article and pointed out that this sentence was a deep relief to me: Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.

So there is my proof that this is what I meant.

I am also not an atheist. I believe there are things we can't possibly understand with our puny restricted human brains. I respect the personal choices of individuals -- I would never argue someone out of their personal experience of the divine.

What I don't like is when someone uses their personal experience as an excuse to control others, to define "morality" for others. This guy. Mormons working tirelessly on Prop 8. Parents trying to keep any mention of homosexuality out of schools, which perpetuates the bullying and the shaming. edit - And of course when the Bible is used to trump science. That gives me the screaming mimis.

And I believe that when atheists attack someone's belief as irrational, it is no different than a Christian attempting to force their worldview on the atheist. I think atheists take their justifiable anger at Christians attempting to -- and succeeding at -- controlling others through shame, laws, wars and go too far with it -- I don't believe it is necessary to talk someone out of their personal religious experience, IF IF IF that personal religious experience isn't affecting the atheist in any way. I think atheists need to learn to let folks be, and focus on facts -- overturning Prop 8, booting fundamentalist School Board members out.

Them there's my two cents. Sorry you have felt beat up here. The Sift is a great place, with some really really REALLY smart and funny people. Including some, in my opinion, angry atheists. It is part of the Sift's charm, if you can treat it like entertainment.





>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting


The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.

I somewhat disagree with him on this particular item. I think that the word "atheist" is just a shortcut around some opening-round questions.

We can elect to avoid labeling ourselves as such, but the simple fact of the matter is that anyone who asks me the question "Do you believe in any god/gods/supreme being?", to which I answer "no", is going to label me as an atheist whether I self-apply it or not. Furthermore, refusing to self-apply the label just gives the detractors an excuse to give a dismissive, haughty little laugh to themselves and think "well, if they are so sure of themselves, why are they trying to weasel out of this rather simple term?".

I think "atheist" is often used as a loaded term along the lines of "gay", and related words whether used in an attempt to be derogatory or not. When some idiotic 13 year old (its OK, I was an idiot when I was 13 too) says "this food is gay", "this music is gay", etc. their use of the term in that way says much more about themselves than about whatever they are applying it to. When a somewhat more mature, yet tragically not yet mature enough adult calls a homosexual a "fag", they are usually applying the term in a way that is meant to shut down discussion. Fag, worthy of derision or not worthy of any consideration whatsoever, end of story.

"Atheist" is used by many religious people in much the same way. This person doesn't believe what I believe, their lack of vision is worthy of derision or at best they should just be ignored, end of story. However, in both instances it is very clear for any witnesses capable of rational evaluation that this person doesn't have anything of real substance to bring to the discussion. They are, in effect, parading their bias and ignorance for all to see.

So I tend to think that a much better approach to this labeling than avoidance is to embrace it. Yes, I am an atheist. Many people will make stereotypical judgments about me based on an association of my with that term. However, the only way to break those stereotypes is to freely accept the label, and provide counterexamples to them as living proof that they are false. That guy freely acknowledges that he is an atheist, yet maybe he is polite. Perhaps he has a family with well-mannered children. He may seem to be a moral/ethical individual. He can be a good friend. All of these things in spite of what the zealot in the pulpit would have many believe about the dreaded "atheists".

It took some time (and will take more) for many people to figure out that "teh gays" aren't all child molesters, they probably won't try to rape you if you happen to meet one on a dark street at night, etc. in spite of what the pope might insinuate or flat out say about them. People accepting that atheists aren't bogeymen will take some time too.

Eh?

I'm not an atheist, myself. And I don't think atheists get too much of a home advantage here. It's kinda nice to see them feel free to talk about their beliefs; it doesn't happen nearly as often as it should.

Of course, Christianity doesn't quite get much positive press here, but that's as it should be. 1,500 years of getting to hang or burn at the stake everyone who didn't agree with them is plenty of time enough. Give someone else a turn, guys.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^mizila:
In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.
Actually, David Sloan Wilson in an amazing experiment using the "Experience Sampling Method" pioneered by Csikszentmihalyi (the guy who investigated psychological "flow" experiences) found the following:
"On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality." (From this article in which Sloan takes issues with some of Dawkins' statements in The God Delusion.)
So technically, your statement just hasn't been borne out by scientific investigation. That's not to say ALL religious people are happier than atheists. We're talking in the aggregate: on average, religious people tend to be happier (along with having other benefits). This should, of course, in no way interfere with your happiness as an atheist. You personally might be happier than everyone else that Wilson studied. But that doesn't mean everybody in the world besides you is better off without religion.
EDIT: What I would say, I guess, is that some people are happier and more productive being religious and others are happier and more productive being atheist. Depends on the individual.


Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

>> ^mizila:

In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.

Actually, David Sloan Wilson in an amazing experiment using the "Experience Sampling Method" pioneered by Csikszentmihalyi (the guy who investigated psychological "flow" experiences) found the following:

"On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality." (From this article in which Sloan takes issues with some of Dawkins' statements in The God Delusion.)

So technically, your statement just hasn't been borne out by scientific investigation. That's not to say ALL religious people are happier than atheists. We're talking in the aggregate: on average, religious people tend to be happier (along with having other benefits). This should, of course, in no way interfere with your happiness as an atheist. You personally might be happier than everyone else that Wilson studied. But that doesn't mean everybody in the world besides you is better off without religion.

EDIT: What I would say, I guess, is that some people are happier and more productive being religious and others are happier and more productive being atheist. Depends on the individual.

>> ^lantern53:

My God is pretty awesome, which totally makes sense to me. I don't believe He was ever jealous. Anyway, not believing in God, I think, would be very depressing. To think there is no spirit world goes beyond what is totally believable...in other words, a spirit world makes far more sense to me than a physical world.


Not sure if I'm feeding a troll here but...

The idea that to not believe in some type of god or gods is depressing is just false. In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.

Atheists don't live life thinking it's just some phase we have to suffer through until we can all get to PERFECTVILLE (aka: heaven). An atheist is perfectly happy knowing life is an amazing result of the wondrous blend of particles and physics that makes up what we see, know, and experience and that we are just lucky to be conscious enough to appreciate it. Where a religious person might see life as a series of rewards and punishments, an atheist will just accept that things happen and its only the individual who makes them "good" or "bad."

Finally, there are definitely things beyond what we understand, but just labeling the unknown the "spirit world" and explaining the unexplained by saying, "GOD DID IT" sure doesn't make me feel more comfortable. I mean, you end your post with stating that the spirit world makes MORE sense than what you can see, hear, feel, touch, and taste around you??? How depressing is that?

What a beautiful *mystery machine! I think atheists have found a valid replacement for god in this marvel.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'thinking, atheist, Jewish, Kosher, Oven, work, Tweaker, You Gotta Be Shittin Me' to 'thinking, atheist, Jewish, Judaism, Kosher, Oven, work, Tweaker, You Gotta Be Shittin Me' - edited by kronosposeidon

Alrighy then. I'm sober and moderately coherent, so let's carry on.

We have a very different view of science. Science can't possibly work by ruling out things, because there the universe is infinite, or, as infinite as we are able to measure at this time. The experiment that produces a result never comes alone. It's always there to support a hypothesis, and to prove it, if successful.

There will always be things we can't perceive ourselves, and we will always work towards finding new ways to view the universe. If we would ever discover everything there is to know, the world would be rather dull, in my opinion.

This, however, does not grant anybody a license to invent facts, to make claims with no substantiating evidence and to basically invent a new universe and ask the rest of us to live in it.

Proving something by disproving every other possibility only works when there is a finite number of possible possibilities (I love that phrase, by the way). There is no finite group of Gods. Every person is free to come up with a new God every day. If someone were to ask 1000 Christians to describe their God, and then compile their replies into a profile, I'd be surprised if he wouldn't end up with at least 4-5 separate deities.

My problem with all religions, isn't about the nature of the faith, or of the God itself, but rather with the claim that they know something which they can't possibly know. Teaching Intelligent Design in a school and putting it on the same level as the science of Evolution, simply because a book tells you the world is 6000 years old, is ludicrous to me.

--------------------

I think we sort of diverged from the original point, and I don't have an actual argument to make anymore. Have a happy new year

In reply to this comment by Lodurr:
Let me phrase it differently: science defines which laws exist by ruling out alternatives. So an experiment that yields a certain predicted outcome doesn't itself prove a law. I brought that up because while we can rule out our old theistic theories on how the world operates, we can't yet rule out other aspects of their beliefs. We just have our five senses, and with those senses we can create tools that have other senses, but there is always more that we can't detect. Prior to the microscope, we had no idea germs existed. Prior to the discovery of radio waves, we had no reason to think they existed either. Similarly, we can't rule out the possibilities of extra dimensions that intersect ours, or new forms of energy and matter. That is why science only works in negatives and probabilities. It means more than "nothing at all."

When it comes to my personal beliefs on existence (which aren't Christian), my own reasoning is that my consciousness existing just once is more improbable than my consciousness existing more than once, given that time is infinite or recursive. A once-off universe doesn't make sense to me. Also, the idea that the force of my awareness is the result of atomic matter alone is implausible. My awareness is as of yet undetectable and unmeasurable, and even finding the consciousness switch in our brains wouldn't make it any more measurable. It'd be like theorizing that your light switch generates the electricity in your light bulb. Regarding the idea of god, I don't see any reason to seperate out another being to be the cause of all existence. I much prefer the idea of the Tao, the singularity with infinite regressions, in which everything is relative rather than absolute.

I don't think atheists are bad people--I am one, after all--but I find that we don't have the same easy access to community-based support groups that our theistic neighbors do. Of course there are secular alternatives to everything religion does, they just don't come as easily or automatically.

Any kind of forceful movement creates an unhelpful backlash. The Taoist way is to let change happen naturally. Education and rising standards of living made more atheists than Dawkins and Bill Maher ever will.

Let me phrase it differently: science defines which laws exist by ruling out alternatives. So an experiment that yields a certain predicted outcome doesn't itself prove a law. I brought that up because while we can rule out our old theistic theories on how the world operates, we can't yet rule out other aspects of their beliefs. We just have our five senses, and with those senses we can create tools that have other senses, but there is always more that we can't detect. Prior to the microscope, we had no idea germs existed. Prior to the discovery of radio waves, we had no reason to think they existed either. Similarly, we can't rule out the possibilities of extra dimensions that intersect ours, or new forms of energy and matter. That is why science only works in negatives and probabilities. It means more than "nothing at all."

When it comes to my personal beliefs on existence (which aren't Christian), my own reasoning is that my consciousness existing just once is more improbable than my consciousness existing more than once, given that time is infinite or recursive. A once-off universe doesn't make sense to me. Also, the idea that the force of my awareness is the result of atomic matter alone is implausible. My awareness is as of yet undetectable and unmeasurable, and even finding the consciousness switch in our brains wouldn't make it any more measurable. It'd be like theorizing that your light switch generates the electricity in your light bulb. Regarding the idea of god, I don't see any reason to seperate out another being to be the cause of all existence. I much prefer the idea of the Tao, the singularity with infinite regressions, in which everything is relative rather than absolute.

I don't think atheists are bad people--I am one, after all--but I find that we don't have the same easy access to community-based support groups that our theistic neighbors do. Of course there are secular alternatives to everything religion does, they just don't come as easily or automatically.

Any kind of forceful movement creates an unhelpful backlash. The Taoist way is to let change happen naturally. Education and rising standards of living made more atheists than Dawkins and Bill Maher ever will.

In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
But you just contradicted yourself... You say in one sentence that if the LHC fails to detect the Higgs boson, it'll be proven not to exist, and then you say that "what we can't prove doesn't exist" is a false statement.

Einstein's quote is correct, but it's meaning doesn't relate to what we're talking about. The best way to counter a scientific theory is by a single example of where that theory is fallacious. If someone were to claim that all odd numbers are prime, all you would have to do in order to "prove" him false is demonstrate that his statement fails in one specific point, like the number 9.

There is a massive difference between "what we can't prove doesn't exist" and "what we can prove doesn't exist, doesn't exist". The first statement actually should be "what we can't yet prove, may exist, but may not", which in scientific terms means nothing at all.

My gripe with your comment, though, wasn't because of the science remarks, but rather over the atheist ones. I'm not sure if you noticed it yourself, but your comment is built on a premise that atheists never do any of the good things Christians do, like participating in the community and so on.

I'm not sure why Christians believe Atheists are the scum of the earth. I don't know why you believe that if I don't believe in the story of the Jewish zombie who was his own father and is coming to save you, but only if you pretend to eat his flesh, drink his blood and communicate your desires to him telepathically, that makes me a bad person. I'm really not.

And about the argument from ignorance, believing in God is an argument from ignorance. You assert a claim that something exists, even though you yourself acknowledge there is no way to prove it, and that it has to be taken on faith alone. That is the very definition of an untestable theory. Your comment was based on the claim that religion is somehow superior, when the core of religion is the deity, or God.

To conclude, I'm a little annoyed right now at work, so don't take this post as me being offensive, please. It's really not meant that way. Maybe I should have put some emoticons all over it to express that

In reply to this comment by Lodurr:
Science does in fact work through falsifiability. If the LHC doesn't end up finding a Higgs Boson, then the Higgs Boson theory in its present form will have been disproven. That is just how science and experimentation works. "What we can't prove doesn't exist" is an inherently false statement and incorrect world view because there are countless things we cannot test or prove that must exist. To quote Einstein, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

I wasn't arguing from ignorance because I wasn't asserting an untestable theory. All I said in my comment was that many religious practices have personal and societal benefits that atheists tend to undervalue because they are associated with religion. I've seen data that supports my theory.