“I’ve never met an atheist”, and other tales of certainty

Liz says:

08:39am | 07/06/10

“We are the stars”......

Isabel says:

08:43am | 07/06/10

Likewise

Rebecca says:

10:54am | 07/06/10

I am a catholic who is completely open to the fact that there are many belief systems in the world, and I respect that. However, just something for the atheists to think about - Scientifically speaking, the chances of the world and everything in it working out in perfect balance and sync (excluding human interference) are absolutely minimal, almost impossible. Can you really say that life in all its forms is a coincidence? I have many atheist friends and have heard thier views. While reasonable to a certain extent, I can not comprehend how anybody could deny the existence of intelligent creation.

Bob says:

11:34am | 07/06/10

@Rebecca, Thanks for that enlightening little statement. Believe it or not, atheists (note the lower case A) have considered this, and, infact, you are completely and utterly wrong. Even an elementary understanding of mathematics of physics will show that a factor of infinity (which is what we’re dealing with here) indicates this system working in perfect balance can ONLY be a random occurence. And, unfortunately, it completely negates the need for a universal absolute (such as the Sky Fairy). In a more philosophical, it also puts paid to the alleged need for a moral absolute as well (which I think we can all agree is a damn dangerous proposition in this day and age). So, not only is the idea of Genesis (or equivilant) completely disproven now, so too is religion’s claim to be the root of modern ethics or a moral necessity.

Patrick says:

11:49am | 07/06/10

Rebecca why did anyone have to design what we see around us? That’s the worst thing about religion, it’s an entirely human concept because we couldn’t explain the way the universe came about a long time ago.

Now we think we can, and have loads of evidence to support various theories on how it all actually happened, on a much more massive scale than anyone who thought up a Creator proposed. Once you see the scale of the actual universe we live in, and how inconsequential anything that we do is in the scale of the cosmos, it is just pure arrogance to think that WE were the reason all this was created.

While you also say that “scientifically speaking, the chances of the world and everything in it working out in perfect balance and sync are absolutely minimal” you are very right, the chances were extremely small, that’s why it took 4 billion years for life to get to this point. Not 6 days. Also, a Christian/Catholic speaking from a “scientific” point of view is a bit ludicrous, as to be Christian / Catholic means one must reject the majority of theories from incredibly intelligent people in exchange for those from thousand year old dogma.

Something for the religious to think about - scientifically speaking, how the hell could anyone 2000 years ago know how the earth and universe was created, before anything was created that could actually tell us (telescope, modern geological techniques, UV / other kinds of light sensors, and thousands more)

Coopies says:

11:56am | 07/06/10

Rebecca, you really need to read a little more on Evolution. Darwin covered your questions off most succinctly a couple of hundred years ago. Your upbringing may not have exposed you to the material but it’s pretty logical, unlike the alternative.

Patrick says:

12:04pm | 07/06/10

Oh and also Rebecca, did you see the article about life being found on Titan? Seems that even with minimal chances, life happens.

As Stephen Hawking put it in his latest series of documentaries; Stephen Hawkings Universe, on the Discovery Channel, life is like winning the lottery. The numbers are absolutely astronomical, yet someone wins nearly every week, and it’s a big, BIG universe.

Atheist Believer says:

12:23pm | 07/06/10

Rebecca

What do you mean everything in balance?

The universe is chaos. Opposing forces constantly fighting each other. Even ecosystems here on earth trying to take over each other (and often succeeding).

Your point makes no sense.

Elphaba says:

12:33pm | 07/06/10

@Patrick,

They found life on Titan?  Can you post a link?  Thanks!

Patrick says:

12:37pm | 07/06/10

Elphaba it was on the main page of news.com.au, down the bottom at the Technology section.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scientists-excited-by-signs-of-life-on-saturns-moon/story-e6frfro0-1225876207420

Rebecca says:

01:33pm | 07/06/10

Wow that caused an interesting reaction..
You all make good points, and I am not saying that you’re all wrong and science is irrelevant.  I am just making the point that I don’t believe life is a meaningless coincidence.
We are only humans, and while we have discovered so much through scientific advancement, there has got to be more out there than what we see.

Also, aspects of human life such as love, friendship, and kindness: Why do they exist if the purpose of our life is just to survive and reproduce the species? Another meaningless coincidence?

Bea says:

01:39pm | 07/06/10

I agree with you Rebecca.

I disagree that somehow life randomly began. Let’s look at the human body. Which random act happened first? The bones in a leg, or the muscles that surrounded them? The digestive system or the existence of food for that system? That’s alot of randomness happening at the exact same moment, considering the amount of life there is on our teeny planet.

And yes I have heard about darwin’s theory of evolution - and I like to remember that’s all it is - a theory. Just like the theory of creationism.

Steely Dan says:

01:55pm | 07/06/10

@ Bea
“Which random act happened first? The bones in a leg, or the muscles that surrounded them?”
The short answer is the leg, as I understand it.  But you’d be going back to microscopic creatures to see the first mutations that form what we would think of as a leg. 

“That’s alot of randomness happening at the exact same moment, considering the amount of life there is on our teeny planet.”
Who says it happened at the same moment?  You don’t understand much about evolution, do you?

“I like to remember that’s all it is - a theory.”
Just like germ theory.  It’s ‘just a theory’.  You seem to think that theory means ‘guess’ or ‘hunch’, because that’s how you might use the term colloquially.  But that’s not the case when you use the term in its original scientific context.  It’s not a ‘guess’ which needs more evidence before it’s ‘proven’ – proof is a mathematical term, this is biology.  Evolution is both a theory and an accepted fact.

“Just like the theory of creationism.”
Hypothesis, Bea. Hypothesis.

Bob says:

01:57pm | 07/06/10

@ Rebecca and Bea,

Usually I’d hit you with a diatribe for that, but we’re being grown up today so I’ll be a little respectful.

However, there are enormous holes in your logic. I fail to see how you can claim you are not convinced by the wealth of scientific evidence which suggests the existence of any god is highly unlikely, and then in the same breath say you instead choose to believe in a very specifici god, as outlined in Judeo-christian mythology.

The reason you have found such a spirited response (no pun intended) is because the scientific method demands you justify your belief in this god in order for it to be taken seriously as a theory.

As for Bea’s comment suggesting creationism is the same level as evolution, I suggest you read a little bit more about what constitutes a scientific theory. The definition is much different to that which applies to the everyday use of the word.

And just to trot out an old chestnut (as everyone else seems to be using some pretty tired arguments as well), gravity is still a theory as well. Do you also choose not to believe in that?

TJ says:

02:03pm | 07/06/10

@Bea - if you have watched the Fifth Element that question has been answered fully lol

monkeytypist says:

02:04pm | 07/06/10

@Rebecca: “Also, aspects of human life such as love, friendship, and kindness: Why do they exist if the purpose of our life is just to survive and reproduce the species? Another meaningless coincidence? “

There are evolutionary motivations for all these behaviours - which is why non-human animals manifest them, as well as humans.  Simply put, societies of humans that exercise reciprocity towards each other and care for their young and vulnerable do better than isolated individuals at surviving.

Human “souls” aren’t unique - we behave in very similar ways to our close relatives, the great apes (e.g. the maintainance of complex societies and hierarchies).

Please understand that because there is a scientifically plausible motivation for these things does not at all diminish them or make them less worthwhile.  Rainbows are still beautiful even when we have a full scientific understanding of how they form.

Trjn says:

02:08pm | 07/06/10

@Bea:
You’re using “theory” in two different contexts.

The theory of evolution refers to the scientific context: “A scientific theory is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.” Evolution is also considered a dact because it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence, feel free to look that stuff up.

The use of “theory” in describing creationism is in the more common usage, which is basically just speculation. There’s nothing to back it up, no evidence and no testable predictions can be made from it.

To use the tired line that gets trotted out every time someone tries to discredit evolution by saying that “it’s only a theory”, gravity is “only a theory” too.

Patrick says:

02:13pm | 07/06/10

Bea life did not get created at the exact same moment, it took billions of years and billions of minute changes in the environment and the first creatures. There is a theory that everything that makes up the human body was a seperate organism at one time, even all the way down to the mitochondria (what is effectively a power plant at a cellular level, transferring raw energy obtained through breathing from cell to cell).

Just because you have not read all the threads that link the many theories of evolution, and can’t understand it, does not mean that someone had to make it. Read about mitochondrial Eve, the woman who’s DNA is inside everyone on earth to this day, and read about the mapping of the human genome, and the theories that large chunks of what make up our DNA are thought to be ancient viruses that inhabited us and never left.

The whole of life can be broken down to one, incredibly long chemical reaction, if one is patient enough. If on the other hand, one doesn’t like facts getting in the way of a good story, religion somehow still exists…

Bea says:

02:15pm | 07/06/10

So if evolution happened slowly - did the food appear after the digestive system that requires it to survive, or did the digestive system appear after the food became available? My point was that there are so many intricate parts of life, that are balanced in existence together that the randomness of so many amazing creatures and life forms is incredible.

As many others have posted here their atheism is a choice to not believe in a deity. Sweet. I’m fine with that. I’m not going to tell you that you are wrong and I am right. But I do believe in God, and I choose to not really care about evolution.

Bea says:

02:19pm | 07/06/10

Evolution is a theory, yes just like the theory of gravity or relativity. Just because we think we’re smart enough to have it all figured out doesn’t mean it’s so. I mean scientists have been wrong before right (phrenology anyone)?

Matt Stewart says:

02:27pm | 07/06/10

Bea.  Please try to understand evolution before you you write it off.  Contrary to popular belief among it’s opponents, evolution is not ‘random’.

Patrick says:

02:32pm | 07/06/10

Bea.. The first thing that was, was an energy source. Light, water, air. The next thing, was an organism that could utilise this energy source. The next thing that happens, was survival of the fittest.

“My point was that there are so many intricate parts of life, that are balanced in existence together that the randomness of so many amazing creatures and life forms is incredible.”

Yes, it is, and please don’t cheapen it by suggesting some “omnipotent” being must have created it all. And the “balance” you speak of is not so much a balance as a push and shove back. Survival of the fittest. An incredibly proven concept in every facet of life.

Tom says:

02:32pm | 07/06/10

Bea, I have two live wires here. Why don’t you touch them to test the ‘theory’ of electricity?

Einstein once said that 100 experiments couldn’t prove him correct, but one could prove him wrong. That is the essence of science - nothing can ever be proved per se, it can only ever be shown to be correct based upon the limits of current knowledge. After all, there are still people who believe the earth is flat.

Tom says:

02:38pm | 07/06/10

So let me get this straight, Bea, you criticise the theory of evolution, claiming that you disagree that life occurred ‘randomly’, and then go onto claim that you ‘choose to not really care about evolution’. How exactly can you rationally criticise something you admit you don’t really care about, and by extension, probably do not have much knowledge of?

If you choose to believe in Christianity, fine, but to then criticise something you obviously are completely ignorant of is a little rich.

Matt says:

02:39pm | 07/06/10

Rebecca, you asked about why we have aspects of human life such as love, friendship, and kindness:

We are not a solo creature, and would have been wiped out before we started if we had not formed together in groups: Our children are particularly vulnerable compared to other species; we don’t possess razor claws or sharp teeth: a naked man alone in the wilderness is really no match for what is out there and our women and children would have been easy picking for any hungry animal.

Thus we have an inbuilt urge to stick together which you have labelled, love, friendship and kindness. Dogs have this too, which is why they strive for our affection so much, and lick our faces/hands - they’re pack animals and also need to stick together. Cats.. not so much (but not completely without).. but they typically hunt alone and have far more survivability than we do with their speed/stealth and lethality.

It could easily be argued that all our emotions and feelings evolved merely to protect and sustain our species. I certainly wouldn’t find the existence of love to be evidence of existence of god.

Steely Dan says:

02:41pm | 07/06/10

@ Bea

“So if evolution happened slowly - did the food appear after the digestive system that requires it to survive, or did the digestive system appear after the food became available?”
The digestive system, then the food.  Was that supposed to be a hard question?

“My point was that there are so many intricate parts of life, that are balanced in existence together that the randomness of so many amazing creatures and life forms is incredible.”
I usually hear this argument expressed as: ‘But trees are pretty!’ Do some research, Bea.  Find out what evolution is.

“As many others have posted here their atheism is a choice to not believe in a deity.”
A choice?  Belief and non-belief aren’t choices.  Pick a religion you don’t believe in, then believe in it for five minutes, just to see what it’s like.  Didn’t work?  I wonder why. 

“But I do believe in God, and I choose to not really care about evolution.”
But what if it happens to be a fact of life?  Why not get a basic understanding of it before you reject it?

“Just because we think we’re smart enough to have it all figured out doesn’t mean it’s so. I mean scientists have been wrong before right (phrenology anyone)?”
So let’s presume gravity is nonsense.  Jump off a tall building, bounce back up, run to your computer and tell me that refusing to accept the scientific consensus is a sensible way to live your life.  Science doesn’t deal in absolutes, Bea.  Which is why, as I stated before, ‘proof’ is a mathematical concept.  Accepting that we could be wrong is not an excuse to assume that we are. 
Oh, and phrenology never enjoyed the same status as the theories of evolution and gravity.

Charles Darwin aka Peter says:

02:46pm | 07/06/10

I think they found bananas on Titan..

@ Stealy Dan, evolution is a theory, but not an established fact..

Elphaba says:

03:14pm | 07/06/10

@Peter,

At least science has the humility to say “we think”, not “we know”.

Religion knows no humility.  Obviously, neither do people like you… the worst poster child for “why” to believe.

Steely Dan says:

03:19pm | 07/06/10

@ Peter

“@ Stealy Dan, evolution is a theory, but not an established fact..”
They’re not mutually exclusive terms, Peter.  Evolution is both.

And could these bananas on Titan be described as an ‘atheist’s nightmare’?  Are they ‘curved towards the mouth for ease of entry’?

James1 says:

03:35pm | 07/06/10

To be fair on yourself, Mr Darwin, at least yours is a theory.  The “theory” of creationism is not a theory at all, but an unsubstantiated assertion from an unattributed, and unreferenced, book.

Ned says:

04:57pm | 07/06/10

Bob,

Your argument is logical but it does not help the cause of athiests to ridicule believers by using terms such as “Sky Fairy”.

Dan says:

06:12pm | 07/06/10

I hope those saying that life has been found on Titan don’t consider themselves to be rational thinkers.  What was found is a chemical mix that didn’t match expectations.  One theory that might explain it is some primitive life form on the surface.  That’s all there is for now.  But “Life on Titan” sells better than “Assumptions Found to be Wrong: New Theory Under Development”.
What else… Evolution is a theory, yes.  Ever heard of the “Theory of Evolution”?  Pretty simple.  Gravity is a scientific law (the Law of Gravity).  Too complicated?  Creationism is not a scientific theory, but some creationists are trying to develop a scientific theory called Intelligent Design.
Science is able to tell us a lot about things that are observable and measurable.  But it cannot tell us diddlysquat about the unobservable.  One philosophical position is that anything unobservable does not exist.  Another philosophical position is that unobservable things may exist.  Neither position is strictly scientific, and Science is not able to inform us which is ‘true’.  One who takes the first position is an atheist while the one who takes the second position is a theist.
So atheism is not the default position at all.  By focusing on the “lack of belief” you’re avoiding the point:  an atheist has a firm belief in the philosophical position that nothing unobservable exists.  This is itself a relatively new (modern era, Western) philosophy, so it should not be surprising if many non-westerners find it strange.

CC says:

08:06pm | 07/06/10

You will find that Human Evolution and the accompanying theories are typically studied within the Arts departments of most universities, not the Science departments.  This is because there is so little “fact” associated with the theories.  As an atheist who spent 3 years at uni studying these theories, and seeing their weaknesses, I have personally concluded that I don’t give a crap how humans came to exist.  We exist, that’s enough.

Ben says:

09:04pm | 07/06/10

@Dan:  What a massively bad generalisation.

If something is not observable and by definition not measurable in any way whatsoever, then it is a pure thought exercise - it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  And in my personal opinion, it seems a bit silly to build an entire belief system around something that may as well have been made up (regardless of whether it was made up 5 years ago by Bobby Henderson, 170 years ago by Joseph Smith, 1400 years ago by Muhammad or 2000 years ago by Jesus).

Don says:

10:22pm | 07/06/10

You armchair evolutionists need to research better.  Someone touting mitochondrial Eve as the answer to end creationist claims should look up the latest research that suggests she could be as little as 6000 years old, and y chromosome adam 4000 years (funnily enough, the same times the biblical eve and noah are believed to have lived - eve being our furthest female ancestor, and noah our furthest male)

Also, please someone explain how irreducible complexity fits with the theory of evolution?

Alison says:

11:44pm | 07/06/10

Bea: you claim that people “choose” not to believe in a deity, but in this you are wrong. Belief is not something you can choose. Either you find an argument convincing, or you do not.

Take the following claim, for instance:

“I am Chairman Mao.”

If you disbelieve me when I say that, is it something you “choose“ to disbelieve, or do you disbelieve because the claim is obviously rubbish? Could you “choose” to believe my claim that I am Chairman Mao?

If you feel that belief in my claim that I am Chairman Mao is not a choice, why do you think that I “chose” to not believe in your claim that your special book written by desert primitives is the Complete Truth(TM)?

Steely Dan says:

09:19am | 08/06/10

@ CC

Was this a university or a Bible college?

Steely Dan says:

09:32am | 08/06/10

@ Don

“You armchair evolutionists need to research better.  Someone touting mitochondrial Eve as the answer to end creationist claims”
You do realise that the same methods we use to show that a mitochondrial ‘Eve’ and ‘Adam’ existed is the same that shows that humans and animals show a common ancestor?

“Also, please someone explain how irreducible complexity fits with the theory of evolution?”
Easy.  It doesn’t irreduucible complexity is the invention of Michael Behe and friends, and they have yet to present a system that they can show is irreducibly complex.  IC is a poor hypothesis, Don.  We ‘armchair evolutionists’ don’t have to ‘explain’ anything until somebody can demonstrate that something is irreducibly complex.

secular is sexy says:

10:17am | 08/06/10

look at the human body with a critical eye and you will see that is an imperfect machine with flaws, redundant systems and a multitude of weaknesses. If we were created then our creator is a lousy engineer.

Dave says:

04:27pm | 08/06/10

Rebecca, Bea,

Evolution is just a theory.
But it’s the only viable theory yet presented.

Some Greek guy worked out the theory of a benevolent and all powerful god was a dud around 2200 years ago. Sentient life has moved on to other concepts, like evolution, leaving the dullards behind.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Why indeed ?

If you’re REALLY interested in the answers to your questions, read some books. Start with ‘The God Delusion.’

Read some books.

notsurprised says:

05:53pm | 08/06/10

“Even an elementary understanding of mathematics of physics will show that a factor of infinity (which is what we’re dealing with here) indicates this system working in perfect balance can ONLY be a random occurence.” Well Bob if you know mathematics like you say, it seems the odds are stacked against us.

Bob says:

11:57am | 09/06/10

@ notsurprised

Indeed the odds are stacked against us. The odds the sperm that resulted in you being born making it were astronomical but it happened. And as someone has already said, the odds of winning the lottery are enormous as well but people win it frequently. In an infinite and chaotic universe then the apparently balanced (not true but it appears balanced to the uncritical) system of which we are a part is a very probable proposition.

Paul Horn says:

09:57am | 07/06/10

Yeah but you believe that something came from nothing!!! That takes far far far greater faith than to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being. What gets me is that you arrogantly proclaim that your “belief” is the natural default posiiton!! Why can you not at least admit that belief in no God takes as much if not more faith than belief in a supreme being??  I respect your belief in nothing but cannot understand why there is this aggressive hateful backlash against those that have religion.

The greatest atheistic systems namely Communism / Socialism were the most destructive, wanton killing machines of the 20th century. Their leaders had no compassion for humanity as witnessed by the deaths of hundreds of mllions in the gulags and that in itself is a frightening propsect for a world with no belief in higher power!!!

DaveC says:

10:44am | 07/06/10

Chris while it may be true that to some hard-core believers the concept of no-God is unthinkable, it would be generalising to say that religious people never question their faith. I would say that the concept of atheism to all believers is not unthinkable in the slightest.

Trjn says:

10:48am | 07/06/10

@Paul Horn:
Athiests believe something came from nothing, but Christians believe that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being created everything. . . but never explained where this omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being came from. He either came from nothing or has always been. So, if the creator could have always existed, why could the universe have not always existed? If the creator does not need creation, why does the universe?

You can’t argue that the universe is so complex that it has to have a creator, when the creator who is capable of making such a complex thing must be infinitely more complex himself.

It doesn’t take more faith to not believe in God. Not when you take a step back and look at the whole picture.

As for your claim about Communism and Socialism being athiest systems that were the most destructive, wanton killing machines of the 20th century. That just simply isn’t true. People did evil deeds in the name of those “causes”, but it wasn’t because they believed or did not believe in a certain faith system, it was because they were evil people.

Radical Muslims have performed unspeakable actions and they believe in the same God that Christians do, we’ve witnessed wars and other travesties unfold in the name of religion, just as we’ve seen them unfold for other causes.

Don’t try and pin one group of people’s actions with a group who’s only unified by their lack of belief in a higher power.

Mel says:

10:49am | 07/06/10

@Paul Horn, your arguments against atheism are tired, untrue and have been heard all too often. I read absolutely nothing “hateful” or “aggressive” in Chris’ response. Atheists do not “believe” there is nothing, it does not require any faith, merely that bountiful evidence suggests and proves otherwise. There are very few people who study evolution and biology at a tertiary, or even secondary, level and are still able to maintain their faith in “intelligent design”.

Your second (straw man) paragraph is laughable. Nobody has ever been killed in the name of atheism. How many deaths have been caused by religion?

Shane says:

10:50am | 07/06/10

@ Paul Horn
You talk about “arrogant”, “hateful”, “aggressive backlash” from the aetheist community, whilst equating aetheism with communism and socialism.
Your “respect” for aetheism is nothing more than lip service, as so thoroughly demonstrated by your arrogant, hateful, aggressive rant.

Elphaba says:

11:06am | 07/06/10

@Paul Horn, I am sick and tired of you peddling the idea that socialism is the dangerous result of atheism.

Socialism/Communism, is just religion in a different frock.  They are regimes that elevate a man to the status of God, and ask the people to unquestionably worship him.  Propaganda fuels an idea that they are better than a mortal man, that they have been ordained.  They’ve simply removed the sky-dwelling being element, and ask for the people to worship a flesh and blood idol rather than a spiritual one.

You call Chris arrogant and yet you ram your belief system down everyone else’s throat and imply that they are stupid not to believe in what you believe.  You’re exactly the problem that Tory is talking about.

And when you can’t argue a point rationally and calmly, you bring up the Nazi’s.

Now, in spite of that, I do agree with one thing.  Religion is important to the world.  Without it, there are some people who would not be inspired to greatness.  And there are some that would realise their full terrible potential if there was no spiritual accountability.  In that sense, religion should remain an important cornerstone of our society.

But your spurious arguments that socialism is the result of atheism, is tiresome.  People who do not believe what you believe are not deficient in their thinking.  You might want to try a little tolerance instead - because when your arguments consist of name-calling and Godwin’s Law, quite frankly, you haven’t got a leg to stand on.

A Dose of Reality says:

11:14am | 07/06/10

Paul Horn,

Yes those political structures of which you speak are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. (You exaggerate the figures though, and forget that Nazism - Socialist -  was politically dependent on Christianity).

No-one can deny the overall position of your statements, though, atheist organisations HAVE been responsible for much harm.

Compare it though to the havoc wrecked through religion (and in particular Christianity):

The Crusaders slaughtered on a scale, based on religion (unknown in Europe outside of Caesars decimation of Gaul) in aastern Europe, Anatolia, and the middle east.  They were barbaric conquests given licence to massacre the “heathen” in manner unacceptable otherwise (there are Papal decrees on this, the most notable being the use of the crossbow). 

There are also the better known massacres of Jews and Moslems in Spain (Spanish inquisitions) and the likewise persecution of Protestants (Italian inquisitions).

Not to mention the destruction of whole societies in the Americas, and in Asia, on the basis that the natives were “godless’ and without rights.  The very phrase “draw a line in the sand” comes from the arbitrary desiccation of Africa without regard for the native political and ethnic structures (still a cause for bloodshed today).

There are also the destructive wars fought in Europe regarding the dominance of Catholicism or Protestantism.

Add to this the extinction of Gnostics and other sects (Abrahamic in nature) by both the Roman Christian church and in particular the East Roman (Byzantine Church), the Coptic Christians exist today only because of the Ottoman subversion of the byzantine Empire.

To paraphrase:

“that in itself is a frightening propsect for a world with a belief in a higher power”

James1 says:

11:27am | 07/06/10

Paul Horn identifies atheists as arrogant for believing that theirs is the default, at the same time as having the arrogance to believe that of all the things that god allegedly created, god still cares what happens to Paul Horn.

Also, Paul, it takes no faith to accept one’s insignificance.  Atheists at least have the courage to admit that they have no idea.

Ish says:

11:34am | 07/06/10

Ah Godwin’s Law, thanks for that Paul.

Many wars have and are faught in the name of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, these are bloody also and many have lost their lives. Just as there are those that use their power and influence to fight in the name of religion there are those who use their power and influence to fight in the name of no religion.

I appreciate that faith is useful, and it gives people hope especially in difficult times, and sometimes in difficult times, I envy that blind faith but my logic tells me that there is no supreme bring just as your logic tells you that there is.

Peter says:

11:57am | 07/06/10

@ Paul Horn, i wouldn’t bother arguing with these people because they do get angry that you have faith. I for one am convinced of the existence of God. Believers in satan would tell you their aethiests and try to make you feel silly for believing God.  Be very wary…

A Dose of Reality says:

11:58am | 07/06/10

POST @ Elphaba says: 11:06am | 07/06/10

“Socialism/Communism, is just religion in a different frock.  They are regimes that elevate a man to the status of God, ......”

No they are not, they are political structures, that being the only commonality with established Abrahamic religion.

Socialist regimes, including the Fascist Fronco, Nazi, Mussolini dictatorships were all Christian in nature, and were structures dependent on their appeal to the religious right wing.

Communism is a structure replacing capitalism (or socialism in its’ extreme form), as such it is also a political structure based on economic principles - NOT religious ones.

Your mistake is probably reflective on the Chinese and Russian interpretations (as viewed by the “west”).  In both cases it can be argued that the churches repressed (particularly in Russia) were also exponents of capitalism, given the extreme wealth those organisations held at that time (and as an illustration - look at the business wealth of the Anglican Orthodox and Catholic churches here in Australia).

As an agnostic (and therefore by definition and atheist) I am offended by the assertion that you make (quoted above).  I view it as no less that an affront to my basic human right to my own beliefs (my belief that there is no “god”, nor is there a spaghetti monster outside of Sesame street).

Bob says:

12:31pm | 07/06/10

@ Paul Horn, reductio ad Hilterum/Stalinum is, I believe, the name given to arguments such as yours. But bear in mind, Nazism does not equal socialism and if you’d bother to research that statement, you’d realise “Nationalsozialismus” is a screaming oxymoron. Anyway, as the rules on online blogs are pretty well agreed now, the first to mention Nazism.Communism loses - so you lost already.
But it’s worth keeping in mind that Stalin studied to be a priest before he realised he had a real shot at becoming god in his own right - and Hitler was a catholic.

Patrick says:

12:41pm | 07/06/10

Peter that was a classic joke… Right…?

The devil is a part of your delusion, not a part of any atheistic view of the world.

Elphaba says:

12:45pm | 07/06/10

@A Dose of Reality says:

You’re right, I incorrectly included Communism in there.  My bad.

My original point, however, still stand (for me) - atheism is not responsible for socialism, socialism is an ideology, whose root are in religion.  The two are not so different.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Steely Dan says:

01:27pm | 07/06/10

@ Paul Horn

“Yeah but you believe that something came from nothing!!!”
Atheists don’t (necessarily) believe that something came from nothing.  The only thing atheists assert is that they are not convinced that anything has come from a supernatural creator. Oh, and Hawking and other leading physicists have stated that ‘something from nothing’ is a possible ‘creation’ scenario.  I don’t pretend for a second that I understand the physics behind it, but there’s some food for thought.

“That takes far far far greater faith than to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being.”
…which created itself?  Or has just always been there?  The god hypothesis doesn’t answer any of the tricky questions.  It just puts them aside while it raises new ones.

“What gets me is that you arrogantly proclaim that your “belief” is the natural default posiiton!!”
1.  Atheism is not a belief, it’s a lack thereof.  Although, you can be an atheist and have the specific belief that there are no gods.
2.  It is the default position.  Nobody’s born believing in a god.

“The greatest atheistic systems namely Communism / Socialism were the most destructive, wanton killing machines of the 20th century.”
Some communist/socialist regimes were/are atheist, a lot weren’t.  The German Nationalist Socialists (we know them as Nazis) were led by a non-denominational Christian (yes, Hitler believed in a god).  Does that mean that all Christians are evil?  Forgive the pun, but hell no.  There are bad atheists (Stalin was almost certainly an atheist, even though he went to a seminary and briefly made Russian Orthodox the defacto state church), just as there are bad theists (Hitler the obvious example here).  To use a current example, the countries with the highest atheist populations are the democratic Scandinavian nations.  No mass civilian killing or imperial domination of neighbours going on there.  And like most atheists I’ve ever encountered, they’re largely secular (ie. no state-imposed religion, but no state-imposed atheism here).  Don’t blame atheists for communism, blame the communists!

Atheist Believer says:

01:33pm | 07/06/10

Paul Horn

There is nothing in science or atheism that suggests we came from nothing. Both believe in evolution based on the chaotic ramification of cause and consequence.

Science admits that it just has not discovered and proven the very beginning of things.

Religion seeks to place that query in the too hard basket and lay a blanket claim that “the Invisible Sky Fairy did it all”

Steely Dan says:

01:37pm | 07/06/10

@ Bob

I’m not sure Hitler was a Catholic, though he was definitely Christian.  I’m not trying to use that fact to help the Catholics save face, just noting that he seemed to take a bit from every denomination that seemed to support his lunacy.  Those pictures of him buddying up with the Pope of the time must be pretty embarrassing for the Catholics though.

A Dose of Reality says:

02:00pm | 07/06/10

POST @ Elphaba,

If you are referring to perceptions of wright and wrong or other such values espoused by socialist ideals being reliant on the doctrine of religious organisations or the dictates of a particular theology, I disagree.

It is quite possible for Socialist ideals to be derived from non-religious sources or ideals.  Confucius (Unfortunately I forget his real name), wrote a socialist framework for a harmonious society thousands of years ago, based on the ideals of peaceful and productive co-existence between people.  He makes the point that a truly harmonious society is one populated by individuals of such a demeanour. 

He makes no reference to superstitions of any kind.

The ancient Summarians, whilst having a deity for each member city/state, also had a healthy “socialist” acceptance for the beliefs of each other city/state, enabling them to integrate cohesively - the same could be said perhaps of both the Mycenae and Doric Greek culture/s.

Socialism and communism are political structures, they are separate concepts from religion but obviously may become intertwined in practical applications.  beware the conceptual nonsense ” they sky is blue and that door is blue, therefore the door must be part of the sky”

Peter says:

02:33pm | 07/06/10

@ Patrick, you’ve obviously been deluded into believing there is no higher being, you’ve been deluded into believing we are related to fish and peanuts.. It is a satan worshipers job to tell you neither god or satan exists. If they convinced you of satan’s existence, you’d be silly to stick with them right?

Elphaba says:

02:41pm | 07/06/10

@A Dose of Reality

We disagree then.  It’s cool.  Thanks for the conversation.

Patrick says:

02:51pm | 07/06/10

So by your view, the collective works of thousands of dedicated scientists over the past 400 years (when religious people stopped killing them) pale in comparison to the teachings of an illiterate Jew 2000 years ago, who believed he could reverse DEATH, perform “miracles”, and cure any disease?

If L. Ron Hubbard were around 2000 years ago, I’m sure you’d be preaching the benefits of being Clear, or how engrams are responsible for all the evil in the world, because he was a MUCH better story teller.

Steely Dan says:

03:12pm | 07/06/10

@ Peter

“It is a satan worshipers job to tell you neither god or satan exists. If they convinced you of satan’s existence, you’d be silly to stick with them right?”
There you go again Pete.  If they convinced you of Satan’s existence, they wouldn’t doing their ‘job’, would they?  Try and make your theology at least superficially consistent before you go preaching.

(I’ve left your anti-evolution stuff alone because it’s hilarious enough without rebuttal!)

TJ says:

03:25pm | 07/06/10

Peter - you are doing to non-believers exactly what irritates you, you are shoving your belief down their throats and saying that their belief or idea is wrong. Little hypocritical don’t you think?

What if you are the one who is wrong? and don’t just say you’re not because everyone will say the same thing, why can’t there be a discussion without the name calling and patronising

James1 says:

04:29pm | 07/06/10

That is not quite what Peter is doing, TJ.  He is also claiming that anyone who does not accept the christian gods existence is, wittingly or not, doing the devil’s work.  That is the kind of attitude that gets apostates beheaded, and heretics burned at the stake.

Fr John Fleming says:

10:23am | 07/06/10

I agree with monkeytypist’s essential point.  Both theism and atheism are thinkable.  The evidence for this obvious proposition is that, leaving aside for the moment controversialists, there are highly intelligent men and women who are either theists or atheists.  It is really silly of Tori to suggest that those who find atheism ‘unthinkable’ is analogous to homophobia.  Why not say that those who find theism ‘unthinkable’ is analogous to homophobia?  The answer is that it is just as silly!  Hitchins, Dawkins et al may find belief ‘unthinkable’ but that is what they think!  Which makes this whole article about what is thinkable and unthinkable so egregiously silly.  The real issue is simple.  Is theism true?  Is atheism true?  And respect for those with whom we disagree seems to be in short supply, especially people like Dawkins, Hitchins et al.

Coopies says:

11:53am | 07/06/10

Agreed. By definition there is no grey area here. Either there is an almighty being or there isn’t. So either you’re right or wrong. Both sides can not be right. So if you believe strongly in one position how can you possible accommodate the other position? Surely you simply can’t. Only those that are uncertain of their position could possibly entertain the other.

TJ says:

12:05pm | 07/06/10

Coopies - Have you seen the movie Dogma? yes hollywood idea but what the appostle Roofus says is quite profound, and I am paraphrasing here “a belief cannot be changed, better to have a good idea”

Harquebus says:

01:12pm | 08/06/10

A child of three will believe anything they are told.

Eleanor says:

11:14am | 07/06/10

I agree. Telling people - especially the devout - that you’re an atheist is generally more trouble than it’s worth.

Patrick says:

11:35am | 07/06/10

I already told God if he wanted me to believe all he had to do was deliver unto me a white duck on my back doorstep.

Still ain’t seen it.

Elphaba says:

11:47am | 07/06/10

The times I have discussed religion, I have found it better to discuss based on the theory I have read (which included the Bible, but lot of other texts) - you’d be amazed at how many believers assume you’re one of them - and you don’t even have to wise them up!

Elphaba says:

11:49am | 07/06/10

Seems like a simple enough request, Patrick!  Do let us know if the duck arrives though. 

Steely Dan says:

01:45pm | 07/06/10

@ Shane

Remember that agnosticism and atheism aren’t mutually exclusive terms.  I’m both, so is Dawkins and most of the other prominent atheists.

Most people (and I’m not assuming Shane’s one of them) seem to think that atheism is the dogmatic assertion that there is no god.  This simply isn’t the case, though you can still be an atheist and make that claim.  ‘Atheist’ is just another name for non-theists (and non-deists).

Matt Stewart says:

02:38pm | 07/06/10

The existence of god is unproven, just like the existence of a psychic stapler in my desk drawer is unproven.  I’d let you look, but the stapler tells me (through telepathy) that it doesn’t want anyone opening the drawer, so you’ll just have to take my word for it.

The point is, you can’t just go around making stuff up and saying “you can’t disprove it!”, and expect people to take you seriously.  If people want to make claims about a being that created the universe, the onus is on them to prove it, not on atheists to disprove it.  Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.  Likewise, the onus is on scientists to prove evolution.  So far they are presenting some pretty compelling evidence, and they are stil working on it.

David says:

02:43pm | 07/06/10

As an agnostic what?

Agnosticism is a position relating to knowledge. As you say you think the existence of God is unproven, so I’m assuming you don’t posit the positive proposition that God exists and are therefore an atheist.

As Steely Dan points out, atheism is not only the positive assertion god doesn’t exist while this is a subset of people who are not theists, a-theism is simply not theism (not believing in God).

Your statement seems to fit this and this is my main issue with how people use the word ‘agnostic’ - they think they have perched themselves on a fence. But there is no fence. Theism and atheism are a true dichotomy, either you believe or you don’t. You can’t do both and you can’t do neither.

http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/2010/06/agnostic-smagnostic.html

Matt says:

03:35pm | 07/06/10

For me, the existence of god is a 50/50 gamble - I have no inclination either way. But nor do I think it matters at all anyway.

I’ve never heard any argument that has led me to think one way or the other.

But I am definitely an agnostic.

David says:

04:42pm | 07/06/10

Matt unless you are advocating that god exists you are an atheist - even if you think it is 50/50 you are still not advocating the position of theism.

Why are people so scared to admit not just to others but themselves that they are an atheist?

Not all atheists assert that no god exists, in fact most I have discussed the issue with are agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god and don’t claim that we know there is no god.

Tell me Matt how you can both not believe and believe in god existing at the same time? While you think the odds of his existence are even you still haven’t expressed a view that is positive to the existence of God.

Imagine you’re on a jury and after being presented with both sides case you adjorn to deliberate on the verdict. Some of the jurors make the positive assertion the accused is guilty. A few others think the accused is innocent. However, you and some other jurors simply remain unconvinced the accused is guilty. However, when the votes are placed you and those who think the accused is innocent all vote ‘Not Guilty’.

On the issue of God existing, the ‘Not Guilty’ group includes both those who say there is no god (gnostic atheists) and those who remain unconvinced there is a God (agnostic atheists). Only theists (gnostic and agnostic) would vote guilty (make a positive assertion god exists).

If you understood what the word ‘agnostic’ meant you would realise providing it alone as an answer to the question of ‘does god exist?’ as a nonsensical response.

http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/2010/06/agnostic-smagnostic.html

Rebecca says:

11:03am | 07/06/10

The “Man in the sky” thing is what makes people think religious people are crazy or unintelligent. Religion is far more complex and involved than some old man in the clouds giving us a rulebook to live by. It is a deep and spiritual experience that makes your life richer and more satisfying.

dazedb42 says:

11:25am | 07/06/10

Rebecca,
all I was trying to say was the exoteric nature of the majors distorts the truth in that it filters what is suitable dogma for the congregation to know. In doing so it is manipulating the faithful for the sake of controlling them and not allowing a genuine spiritual journey towards true enlightenment.

It is a sham that has been perpetrated for far too long. Esoteric discovery is the path to true religion and spirituality. Ego based endeavours are not. The old man in the sky was just me having a dig at some of the dogma that is perpetrated by the church.

Peace.

Rebecca says:

11:49am | 07/06/10

Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound like I was arguing against your point. My comment was more directed towards the phrase “old man in the sky” because so many people (specifically, uneducated atheists) think that’s what religion is. It drives me crazy.

Phil says:

02:13pm | 07/06/10

Maybe you’ve seen too much Simpson’s with the “Old man in the sky” as you have put it ...

Markus says:

12:07pm | 07/06/10

Apathist
I’m in a similar boat. I would consider myself an Agnostic, but that seems to imply that consideration of a god’s existence plays a regular part in my day, which it does not.
If an omnipotent creator god exists, good for him. Not worshipping him/her daily has had no detriment to my life thus far, so I will continue allowing us both to go on doing our own thing.

Darren says:

12:25pm | 07/06/10

I’m with you mate. Where is that beer?

A Dose of Reality says:

11:41am | 07/06/10

6c legs,

Whilst I agree with the direction of your argument, you seem not to have an understanding of the beliefs of the Hindu/Buddhist systems, which are (at a very basic level) the complete opposite of Abrahamic religions.  In their lives the outcome is determined by their own actions, what they believe in could be (incorrectly) determined as a “path” they must travel, choosing HOW they travel is guided by teachings of personal betterment to do with societal harmony.  They both have (as Buddhism is an “offshoot’ of Hindu “wisdom”) far more complex theologies, open to far more interpretation than the Abrahamic theology root (Judaism, Christianity, islam - being the most recognised).

Andrew says:

02:11pm | 07/06/10

To call Buddhism an offshoot of Hinduism does Buddhism a grave injustice by implying that they are similar. In Hinduism, theism is paramount; in Buddhism, it is irrelevant. This is a fundamental difference. You yourself need a Dose of Reality.

A Dose of Reality says:

03:25pm | 07/06/10

@ POST Andrew says: 02:11pm | 07/06/10

As stated in my previous post, Hinduism and Buddhism are theologically far more complex that Abrahamic religions, open to far more individual interpretation.  Yours is valid as there is room in the culture of these religions to support it.  A question, however - do you think Islam is an offshoot of Judaism?

To put one interpretation incorrectly; One god is all-powerful, two gods are also but only in unison, each being half all-powerful and so on and so forth.  The Hindu pantheon numbers in the hundreds of thousands and to some interpretations infinite, to the point where each member is almost powerless (like humans).  In this interpretation each person is equal to a Deity in the sphere of their own lives.  Therefore it is up to them. 

There is also another interpretation that espouses that as Brahma is so integral to the existence of every being that every being is actually part of Brahma (again not entirely the correct way of putting it).

Buddhism is defined as a path to enlightenment, a journey to ones’ true potential - or as someone who has and as such you are right, theism is irrelevant.  However can you explain those enlightened ones - whilst the bodily make up is different the aspect of a pantheon again re-appears.  It is the interpretation of the divine that is different, not the aspect or the ideal of actual existence.

You might also consider that Buddha was a Hindu from birth.  Much as Jesus was a Jew.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp

I welcome argument in order to learn - but I detest ignorance put forward as absolute.

Andrew says:

06:50pm | 07/06/10

The enlightened ones are not deities, and this is best demonstrated by the fact that every human is considered able to achieve enlightenment, (and by that I mean to achieve a state where mental suffering has ceased). If it is asserted in other religions that each human can become a god, it is news to me. Therefore the attempt to draw a parallel once more fails. Also, I would be very, very leery of looking for the truth about Buddhism on a Hindu website, considering that one of the means used by Hindus to combat Buddhism consisted in asserting that the Buddha was an incarnation of Brahma, and that Buddhism therefore, as you have said, is an offshoot of Hinduism. These assertions are false.

6c legs says:

12:07am | 08/06/10

“ADOR” - i’ve, in the last few years have been reading more and more about Buddhism; and if any “religion” sits well with me, that would be it.
Yes, i agree with you that it is nothing like those that had their origins in the Mid East!
My own knowledge of Buddhist history is still a long way short, and wouldn’t stand up to the sort of scrutiny required for a ‘Punch debate’..lol (but, i should’ve disclosed my leanings - my bad.)

As far as Hindus and Brahman go - well i’m sad to say that I’ve met quite a few, and not been impressed with their view, or treatment of non-Hindu or Brahman people - and just leave it at that.

Apologies for taking so long to get back to you, but as all we heathens know; all that worshiping a not-believed-in-deity, takes time… 

Senor Hogtied says:

03:47pm | 07/06/10

I’ve always thought of Anglicanism as a kind of innoculation against religion.  It indoctrinates you with a harmless little bit of religion/virus, and stops you from getting really sick with a real religion/virus like Islam or Catholicism.

James1 says:

04:32pm | 07/06/10

Having attended Catholic school, I can tell you Senor that there is no greater producer of atheists.  The thing that turned me was being told that innocent babies go to hell if their parents do not have them baptised.  If that is how god rolls, I want nothing at all to do with such evil.  Also, check out what he did to all the innocent Egyptians because their unelected leader was recalcitrant.

Chris Oliver says:

05:27pm | 07/06/10

Senor Hogtied, that’s an appealingly generous way of viewing Anglicanism. The less generous view of Anglicanism is that its mildness makes rationalist objections to its core beliefs - in God, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the existence of heaven and hell - seem like zealotry. It gives an acceptable face to a set of beliefs that have no place in rational people’s minds and, by sitting on the fence somewhere between belief and non-belief has less logical coherence than either.

Senor Hogtied says:

02:03pm | 08/06/10

“sitting on the fence somewhere between belief and non-belief has less logical coherence than either.”

That’s exactly what I tell my recently Confirmed Anglican mother.  She is part of a church where the teachings are so watered down, it seems more like a community group than a church.  Seriously, they even have discussions about whether there actually was a Jesus.  What kind of church debates the existence of Jesus, but still thinks of itself as christian? They even have a group within the church called ‘heretics anonymous’.  It would be funny if the bible didn’t advocate a brutal death for heretics.

TJ says:

12:12pm | 07/06/10

Peter - Athiests attack the belief in God so naturally if God doesn’t exist it stands to reason that Satan doesn’t exist so if neither of them exist then not exactly worshipers, no if you’ll excuse me I have to feed my goat

Judas says:

12:14pm | 07/06/10

Ahh, most amusing Peter.

Atheists don’t attack god as we don’t believe that she exists, nor do we believe that Satan exists; hence the lack of attack there as well.

Satanists are atheists however. Having read the Satanic Bible, I can attest to the fact that it makes a lot more sense than the Xian bible.

Kafir says:

12:15pm | 07/06/10

Peter, atheists cannot attack that which does not exist. You do not understand what atheism means if you think atheists attack god or satan or any other supernatural.

Coopies says:

12:24pm | 07/06/10

Peter, we don’t attack either God nor Satan. How can you attack something that doesn’t exist?

Trjn says:

12:26pm | 07/06/10

I really hope you aren’t serious.

Why would an athiest need to attack satan? Satan is merely a part of the Christian belief system and not a fundamental principal like the existence of a supernatural being capable of creating and governing the universe. By attacking the fundamental principal, atheists are also indirectly addressing the idea of satan because without God, satan cannot exist.

I’m athiest and I’m not a satanist, I’m not an anti-Christian, I’m not some immoral person who seeks to destroy the world. All I am is a guy who believes that there is no God and there is need for God in order for people to be good.

James1 says:

12:33pm | 07/06/10

Why should we bother Peter?  Satan is no more real than god, and to deny the existence of god denies the existence of satan.  In this sense, christians are much closer to satan than atheists, because christians (and the religious more generally) accept the existence of satan, whereas atheists do not.  Thus, it is the christians who secretly worship satan, at least according to your own convoluted logic.

monkeytypist says:

12:47pm | 07/06/10

Peter, Peter, Peter.  I remember not so long ago on another thread you were decrying how outrageously offensive it was to talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in arguments about religion, but now you run around insinuating that I secretly worship Satan.  You are either one of the most entertaining trolls I’ve seen in ages or someone who has a genuine difficulty accepting people on their own terms.

I’ve never met you, but I don’t assume you have two heads.  Please do me the courtesy of assuming that I believe what I say when I say that I don’t worship, make sacrifices or cast spells on behalf of anybody.  I can’t be bothered frankly.

Can’t you imagine that it’s actually less effort to worship nothing at all?

neil says:

01:15pm | 07/06/10

Peter atheism doesn’t attack gods how can you attack something that does not exist? Atheism has nothing to do with gods.

By definition satan is a god, so if you believe in satan you canot be a monotheist you are a polytheist so you cannot be a christian or a muslim if you believe in more than one god you must be a pagan.

Steely Dan says:

01:33pm | 07/06/10

@ Peter

You evidently believe in Satan.  That’s something you share with Satan worshippers.  Like it or not, you have more in common with them than we do.

Michael says:

01:43pm | 07/06/10

Neil, Satan by definition is not a God but a fallen angel. Lucifer, as he is known in Christian circles, was one of God’s favourites…til he pissed the big guy off somehow.

neil says:

02:21pm | 07/06/10

Michael, That is the standard fudging to get around the fact that Christains believe in multiple gods, Lucifer, Jesus, angels, saints. By a non Christian befinition they are all gods. Even the Pope is considered closest to god by the catholic church and inevitably Popes become saints.

I’m afraid the Bible is full of contradictions that don’t suit todays Christianity so the churches decide on a new “suitable” interpretation which you must believe even if it is not what the Bible says.

A few examples:

Mary was a virgin - The Bible only says she was a young/unmarried woman.
Jesus was a carpenter - No, he was the son of a builder. So how can be be both the son of god and the son of Joseph the builder?
Jesus was born in a stable - no he was born in a nursery
Jesus was a poor peasant and the direct descendant of King David, how could he be both a peasant and a Davidian Priest? As Pilate said the true king of the Jews, ie an aristocratic contender for the throne.

Peter says:

02:42pm | 07/06/10

Someone once said, the greatest trick satan ever pulled on mankind was to convince it that he does not exist…. So, in my view, if your actively seeking to convert people to aethism, your doing satan’s work…

TheRealDave says:

02:51pm | 07/06/10

In my view - you need to be medicated and kept away from sharp objects Peter.

Steely Dan says:

03:07pm | 07/06/10

@ Peter

“...So, in my view, if your actively seeking to convert people to aethism, your doing satan’s work…”
So we’re just being tricked by the devil we don’t believe in?  Then why do you want to demonise us?  Try and stick to one cosmic conspiracy theory at a time, Pete!

Trjn says:

03:23pm | 07/06/10

@Peter: I don’t Keyser Soze is really the greatest source of theological enlightenment to refer to.

Ally says:

05:18pm | 07/06/10

Peter, I’ll take the bait… forget about Satan, I’m too busy worshiping Hel (the Norse goddess of… yes, you guessed it… Hel). Funny that… I wonder where the authors of the Christian bible got the name Hell from????

A Dose of Reality says:

05:59pm | 07/06/10

POST @ TJ says:

You are a spiritualist.  You are not agnostic.  An agnostic is one who does not “know”  “god”.  This is the opposite of the Gnostics who did claim to “know” “god”.  They too did not believe in a priesthood or political structure to “worship” - which is why structured Christian churches had to slaughter them all - in every guise they appeared.

As a spiritualist, someone who believes that there is a “higher power” you have much in common, believe it or not, with many atheists - who can put up with belief but cannot comprehend how others put up with the obvious hypocrisy that churches use to cement their own power - a position very similar to yours.

Luke says:

04:06pm | 08/06/10

That is really sad…
” A baby is born with no faith and if left alone will not self proclaim any of existing gods”
Like… yeah right anyone could study and proove that with any degree of certainty…
Athiesm and religion is an arguement that has gone on for thousands of years… everything you have written there has been said before and can be countered with another perfectly logical and structured arguement…. As can that arguement be countered… and so on and so on and so on….
Just deal with it…

stephen says:

02:05pm | 07/06/10

A Homeopath ?
Or has that been taken ?

Just Sayin' says:

02:54pm | 07/06/10

Without a God, or a boyfriend.

monkeytypist says:

02:11pm | 07/06/10

With respect to you NR, plenty of thoughtful atheists are aware of Deism.  It was a very powerful belief among many of the prominent scientists and political thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment.  Strictly, speaking, a Deist is also an atheist of course (since an a-theist is simply one who doesn’t subscribe to theism).

A truly sceptical rationalist attitude is incompatible with Deism, as I hope you recognise.  A “God that does not break the laws of physics” is, from the perspective of Ockham’s Razor, wholly unnecessary.  What would be the difference between a world in which the Deist God exists and one where it doesn’t?  Very little, in practical terms.

It’s possible to subscribe to all of the praiseworthy philosophical views of Deism without accepting the premise of undetectable beings.  But if you want to put forward a plausible entity with the name “God”, you have the same obligation as any theist to show why it is rational to accept the existence of such a thing, especially given the existence of it in some Deist conceptions is so vague as to be indistinguishable from atheism.

NR says:

03:25pm | 07/06/10

Monkeytypist I see the primary difference between Deism and Atheism in the following fundamental question: what is the source of the Big Bang, what was before it, what put things in motion?

The answer you provide is either scientific or divine. There’s no evidence either way so it’s a 50/50 chance, I don’t see the latter option as being “wholly unnecessary”. This idea seems fairly rational to me.

You’re trying to put the burden of proof onto me (which I agree), you say that I have the same obligations as theists, but then again why doesn’t that apply to you? Ultimately you can’t tell us what was before the Big Bang, so an Atheist has just as much obligation to prove what created the universe.

The only people who are safe here are Agnosticists, who don’t make any positive claim about the origin of the universe (i.e. Deities and origin of the universe are unknown/unknowable).

Ultimately I cannot prove the existence of God, but I cannot prove the God-free version of our universe either.

So for me, the choice is clearly between either Deism or Agnosticism. I chose Deism because it has a lot of dispassionate principles and mostly because the ideas that Deism promotes, many of them I believed in before I even knew what Deism & Agnositicism is. I only discovered Deism last year, before that I was probably classified as Agnostic/lapsed Catholic.

NR says:

03:34pm | 07/06/10

Even Richard Dawkins cannot disprove a non-interventionist God. Hence why he says the the probability of God’s existence is ALMOST zero, but not zero.

If it were zero, theistic religions would pretty much perish.

monkeytypist says:

09:17am | 08/06/10

A number of points in response:
(1) Assuming that the Big Bang has a cause means that you then have to explain what caused that cause, and so on ad infinitum.  Presenting an entity called “God” to explain some gap in scientific knowledge raises more questions than it settles.
(2) Assuming there was some entity or intelligence that was in some way responsible for the big bang, it isn’t possible to make any claims whatsoever about its nature, since we know nothing about it and have no evidence to go on.
(3) If you want my truthful answer to the question “why did the Big Bang take place?” I can honestly answer “I don’t know”.  That’s a perfectly acceptable answer until there is some evidence that we can use to make further suppositions.  The onus is on people making the suppositions to provide evidence for them.
(4) I don’t accept that it *is* necessary to posit a cause for the Big Bang, which by definition was the beginning of time.  It’s unclear how something could be said to have “caused” something when it could not have taken place “before” it.  It’s like asking “what’s north of the north pole?”
(5) “If the probability of God was zero, theistic religions would almost perish”.  I don’t agree.  Theistic religions uphold all sorts of objective falsehoods and ideas with 0 evidence.  Religion fulfils certain human desires and instincts without having any necessary relation whatsoever to the ultimate nature of reality.
(6) You’re quite right that no-one can comprehensively disprove a non-interventionist god, but it’s also not possible to prove anything about an entity that by definition we can’t detect.  What exactly does this god do that we could notice and that can be causally connected to it in the absence of more plausible alternatives?  And no, as I’ve established above, the creation of the universe doesn’t count.  I can’t disprove that the Earth is rhombus-shaped and held in the claws of giant lobsters named Esmerelda and Keith, but I think it’s pretty unlikely.

NR says:

01:32pm | 08/06/10

(1) Even if you argue there was no first cause, say a repeating process of Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches, you still have no proof for this theory. There are many other theories that do not assume a first cause but more or less state the universe(s) exists for infinity in some way, shape or form.

Saying there is no first cause raises just as many questions as proposing ‘God’ as the first cause.

Like I said above, given our total lack of knowledge of what was before the Big Bang, the ideas of first cause versus perpetual existence is 50/50. Until further evidence is acquired, those are the odds. You are making just as much as a leap of faith, as I am.

(2) I don’t make any assumptions about the nature of God, only that he/she/it set things in motion.

To me, the universal constants (among other natural phenomena) indicate a methodology behind the laws of the universe.

Given there is sentient life now, it is not preposterous to suggest some sort of sentient being(s) existed before this current universe exploded outwards, whether you believe this to be the first universe, or just 1 of infinity.

For all we know, we could be living in a universe ran by a computer.

(3) ‘I don’t know’ is different from saying ‘it wasn’t a deity, it was scientific phenomena’. You seem to take an agnostic view on this question, fair enough. But it does not put the onus on theism & deism anymore than it does for atheism.

Like I said before, only Agnostics escape the burden of proof when it comes to this question because they don’t make any positive claims about what was/what wasn’t before the Big Bang.

(4) So you dispute that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, fair enough. Perhaps existence before the Big Bang was real. So what was before the Big Bang then? You still cannot answer that any better than I can. The only way you can escape the ‘onus’ is to claim ignorance on the question.

(5) Well it may be semantics, but not even evolution is proven to the point of 1, it’s impossible to absolutely prove (1) or disprove (0) a theory. So yeah if he somehow did the impossible, theistic religions would gradually decline and I think would perish, because why would people (in the long term) subscribe to a belief system that is demonstrably wrong beyond a shadow of doubt? You can fool some people all the time, you can fool everyone some of the time, but you cannot everyone all the time.

(6) Well that’s an answer I cannot give definitive proof, it requires a degree of faith, but even Atheism requires a degree of faith.

monkeytypist says:

02:16pm | 08/06/10

I’m not sure if you’ve read or understood everything I was saying.

(1) I’m not saying definitively that there was no First Cause.  I’ve already said that I *don’t know* if there was one.  I’m not positing anything - I’m not saying there was one, I’m not saying there wasn’t.  I don’t have to make a leap of faith since I am perfectly comfortable not knowing the answer to the question, given I have nothing to go on at this point.  What I am saying is that the First Cause argument has problems that you need to fix before it’s conclusive.
(2) Absolutely, we don’t know for sure - which is why asserting that there is a God, or creative principle, or undetectable intelligence, or whatever, is so problematic.  If we’re going to assert these things we need evidence - remembering that lack of evidence for an alternative to a thing is NOT evidence for the thing.  An assumption that the cosmological constants are “fine-tuned” is just that - an assumption, and one that needs evidence before we can accept it.
(3) Please be careful with your definitions.  An atheist is *not* a person who says there is no God.  An atheist is a person who rejects theism, as you yourself are.  An atheist could have any number of viewpoints on whether there was or wasn’t something at the beginning of the universe - the only view that is out of bounds for an atheist is the existence of a theistic god.  There is no burden of proof on me because I’m not making the positive assertion that a god doesn’t exist - merely that there is no convincing evidence that it exists. You and I are also both agnostics, since we accept that we have no definitive knowledge of the existence of a god.  Agnosticism is compatible with and not exlusive of theism, atheism, or deism.
(4) Actually - sorry for the confusion - I am saying there is no time before the Big Bang.  For this reason I don’t think it’s important and/or knowable to say “what happened before the Big Bang?”  I’m not even sure if that question makes sense.
(5) You’re quite right, you can’t fool all of the people - all you need to do is maintain enough power in your religion to silence and ridicule alternatives.  I say again that a lot of what is believed in modern religion (as well as ancient) has no discernable relationship with the truth and is more concerned with maintaining social relations and/or power structures.
(6) See (3) above.  Atheism does not require faith because it does not make any contentions other than that theism is unsupportable.  This is not a matter of faith, this is a matter of arguing from evidence.

NR says:

03:39pm | 08/06/10

(1) Fair enough, an agnostic answer.

The First Cause does have problems and isn’t conclusive, but assuming the Big Bang doesn’t have a cause still requires some explanation on the nature of the Big Bang; if there is no first cause then the default option is perpetual existence The burden is still there because we do not know absolutely. The only way to escape it is ‘I don’t know’.

What I’m saying is, every single explanation for the origin of the universe other than ‘I don’t know’ has a burden of proof. This addresses (2) as you argue positing God’s existence is problematic (true), but you fail to recognise that any other alternative is also problematic. It is not a logical fallacy, it is not a case of “lack of evidence”, it is not that we ‘have no other explainable alternative so this must be true’, it is more that ‘whatever theory we come up with, divine or scientific or otherwise, it is impossible to verify and it will never ever been proven’.

That is the way I see it.

(3) Ok well for Atheism I’ve been going on the definition of basically ‘rejecting deities’, which you apparently do not accept. The Greek translation is “without gods” so that’s how I see Atheism, an affirmative statement that Deities are fiction.

But I ain’t the king of the English language so can’t make you accept this definition, but I still think the burden of proof applies to Atheism (as defined above).

In my books, if you do not state absolutely whether God exists or not, that’s agnostic.

The only way I see escaping the burden of proof is an agnostic answer.
But you argued before that a Deist God is to explain some gap in scientific knowledge, but who is to say that scientific knowledge (perception of the universe, what we consider objective ‘facts’) will ever explain the entire nature of Big Bang? The scientific method may not even be applicable before this universe was created.

(4) Ok I think I understand what you’re saying here. I don’t think I can grasp the idea of there being ‘nothing’ before the Big Bang, or there being ‘no before the Big Bang because time didn’t exist’. The idea of time not existing, like the idea of infinity, seems beyond my human grasp.

(5) I believe (with no proof whatsoever) that religion developed primarily as an evolutionary function, required by early civilisation to compartmentalise death/the unknown in their brains (as well as providing social collectives and power structures you mention) I think that one day humanity can evolve beyond theistic religions and as such, the impossible hypothetical I mentioned (proven to the point of 1) would do much to erode theism over time and it would gradually perish. Keep in mind that I’m talking 100’s, 1000’s perhaps even 10,000’s of years.

(6) By your definition Atheism does not require faith, by mine it does. We agree to disagree.

Cheers for the debate it has been most enlightening.

Steely Dan says:

06:57pm | 08/06/10

@ NR
“The Greek translation is “without gods” so that’s how I see Atheism, an affirmative statement that Deities are fiction.”
The first time the term ‘atheist’ was used it was by the Romans to describe Christians.  Perhaps there emphasis was on the plural in the ‘without gods’.  But in modern usage the term atheist applies to people who do not believe in a god (this obviously doesn’t exclude atheists who assert that there are no gods - usually called antitheists).

“I still think the burden of proof applies to Atheism (as defined above).”
It may apply to any atheist who is also antitheist, depending on the context of the debate. 

“In my books, if you do not state absolutely whether God exists or not, that’s agnostic.”
Correct.  But you can be both agnostic and an atheist.  Agnosticism means that you don’t claim to ‘know’ that a deity exists or not.  Theists believe in god, atheists do not.  Gnostics (not to be confused with the ancient Christian sect of the same name) claim to know their position to be true, agnostics do not.  Of course, there are difficulties when defining knowledge, so it’s always best to ascertain what somebody believes, their reasoning for their position (if applicable, I know a lot of Christians who believe that reason needs to be separated from faith) and whether they hold their belief to be true on the balance of probabilities, beyond a reasonable doubt, or absolutely.  A person most atheists would call an antitheist might not hold to their position (that there are no gods) absolutely - in fact most antitheists I know reject claims of absolute knowledge.

Unfortunately, most people who simply identify as agnostic think that atheists like Richard Dawkins dogmatically assert that there are absolutely no gods, without realising that the ‘evil’ Dawkins holds exactly the same views on gods’ existence as they do.

stephen says:

02:45pm | 07/06/10

Is that where they get the expression ‘nutty as a meat-ball’ from ?

TJ says:

03:05pm | 07/06/10

I am now a convert and worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster

A Dose of Reality says:

06:27pm | 07/06/10

But lo, HE hath gone, leaveth the wide-eyed to their macaronian benevolences.  HE did rest (and picked up a few salami slices) while the Apostle Kermit did battle with the Archangel Miss Piggy for the minds of the faithful - never forgetting that the air did belongeth to HIM of the long noodle and tomato sauceth.  For it is written that HE the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster shall return to claim HIS rightful place (in the bowl - next to the Holy Bread and pious Bishop fork’n'spoon on sesame street).

Matt Stewart says:

03:35pm | 07/06/10

The old joke…

A man in Northern Ireleand is stopped at a road block and asked “Are you Protestant or Catholic?”

He replies “I’m an atheist”

“Aye, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?”

Sometimes your religion is about more than just the way you worhip god.  Sometimes it is about family, culture, identity and history.  Many people might identify as being christian, just because they’ve always been christian, even though god plays no part in their life.

TJ says:

03:29pm | 07/06/10

Hayley, I will ask you a question in reply, from what I have read the Atheists started out calmly stating their points with no name calling or abuse, then Paul Horn and Peter start with the abuse, what are they trying to achieve? and what are you hoping to achieve by that question?

Matt Stewart says:

03:31pm | 07/06/10

Religious people become atheists and atheists become religious people all the time.  Religions wax and wane, start and finish.  People even change religion.  Many people argue these issues because they are not really sure of themselves.  Others do so because they like a good mental challenge.  Still others realize that although some religious people and some atheists are informed and articulate, some cling to fallacies that need to be cleared up.  A few just enjoy trolling.  To suggest that these arguments never really get anyone anywhere is simply not true.

Steely Dan says:

03:36pm | 07/06/10

“The fact is, these arguments will never really get anyone anywhere, because neither atheists nor Christians (or any other religion, for that matter) will ever truly believe that the other side can look at their position critically. Because we’ve already decided.”
I’m not going to hold back on you, Hayley, sorry.  You’ve just called me uncritical without any justification.  As a kid I was petrified of death, hoping (and praying) that God reveal himself to me and that I’d be able to get to heaven.  I cried myself to sleep a long time.  He didn’t turn up, Hayley, and I also realised that wanting something to be true is not the right way to go into an investigation. 
Don’t tell me that I’ve made my mind up before I considered religion might have a basis in fact.  You’re more incorrect than you will ever know, and more condescending than you realise.

David says:

03:59pm | 07/06/10

Except hayley you’re ignoring the transition one may make over the course of their lifetime.

Not every atheist has always been an atheist, and vice versa for theist. it serves no one (except perhaps your own sense of elitism) to simplify the issue in to ‘everyone has their own presuppositions and they’re all equal’.

Not every one does, and not all presuppositions are equal. You have all your work ahead of you to produce a convincing argument to suggest someone who engages in philosophical and scientific skepticism and concluded no convincing evidence for the existence of any God has presuppositions that are just as ludicrous as someone who takes the bible to be true and believes in the subsequent established Christian dogma. Not to mention the wide array of other positions one could hold and reasons for holding them.

Surely the discussion itself is a useful activity without the end goal of converting or deconverting the world to one’s own position. Frankly, your relatavism saddens me, it seems to have undermined your own capacity to take a position and engage in defense of it without getting stuck on the fence because you think the view is better.

I also take contention with your observation that it is just atheists drawn to this issue to comment, there are several pro-theist commenters above making statements on scientific knowledge. Then again you might be giving away your own biases here. I think all you are doing is seeking to drag your opposition down to your level. I recommend you google ‘tu quoque fallacy’ you might learn something.

Will you stop and look at yourself? What are you really out to achieve here?

Kafir says:

04:18pm | 07/06/10

Hayley: “What are you really setting out to achieve?”
Actually nothing personal at all. I’d like to live in a secular country, where all its rules and decisions are made purely on reason and critical assessment, and exclude any reference to supernatural. This does not deny any one a right to private belief system, but it denies any one religion to claim or practice supremacy and the right to rule “the world” or the people as a group or as an individual. You may think we already have that, but that is not true. And we will see even more religious issues in this country as it is already more evident in other parts of the world.

Consider following text, which should apply to all Australians:

“Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act (Preamble)
An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia. [9th July 1900]

(The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster)

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:”

Elphaba says:

04:26pm | 07/06/10

@Steely Dan.

I suffered the same nightmares too.  I was told if I didn’t pray for myself and my friends and family, we’d all end up in Hell.

I ferverantly prayed every night.  All I got was awful, awful nightmares, and next to no sleep.

Bloody Scripture teachers…

Senor Hogtied says:

04:02pm | 07/06/10

Wow, that sounds like a very heavy burden to bear, Pedro.  I don’t think you are a coward, coming out of the closet as an atheist can be very tough, and even without challenges like a religious wife, it took me a long time to be able to say that I was an atheist.  Living with a conflict like this is really not good for you.  I sincerely hope you find peace on this issue some day.

David says:

04:05pm | 07/06/10

I hope one day pedro you can be honest to your friends and family about who you really are.

Perhaps you can set the groundwork for this by seeking to change and modify the views of your Christian community towards atheists. The prevailing demonisation of people who lack a belief in God continues today in Australia (read the Easter messages from the leaders of Australias three largest Christian denominations from earlier this year for example).

Dan Dennet has done some research interviewing a few priests in the USA who are themselves atheists but continue to live the lie as you do. It is hard to step away from religion for a variety of reasons. Religion has had thousands of year practice developing methods to keep its sheep from jumping the fence.

Elphaba says:

04:08pm | 07/06/10

It’s not cowardly.  The religious folks in your life would probably kick your arse if they found out, so your fear is genuinely understandable.  I feel sorry for you.

However, if you’re able to look after the feelings of the people around you, and are comfortable with participating in the rituals even though you don’t believe, I think that’s great.

It is if living the lie begins to take a toll on you emotionally, that will mean you should say something.  Good luck with it.

Kafir says:

04:28pm | 07/06/10

Pedro, I think you belong to the biggest known, but ‘undeclared’ group of atheists who I would call religious tradition upholders. We often call them moderates etc.. They go to church, celebrate Christmas purely for traditional / cultural reasons. Often to appease family / friends / work / social situations.

Chris L says:

10:47pm | 07/06/10

Pedro, I have no doubt that your wife and family are good people. However your situation points out the intolerance that the extremely religious hold for those who do not share their beliefs, and particularly for those who follow no religion. It’s not a trait of evil people, simply a failure to comprehend.

I grew up with religious indoctrination and tried very hard to believe, then progressed to simply pretending to believe. Now I find myself happily accepting life as it comes because there is no need for such a conflict. I cannot speak for other atheists, but I know I’d be happy to live and let live if only law and society were not trying to push doctrine and theological ideas of “acceptible behaviour” upon me. It seems to surprise some people just how far religion has influenced the perceptions of society, yet I think it would be even more surprising to those people to realise how many simply “go along” with these acceptable norms just to avoid an argument.

monkeytypist says:

02:30pm | 08/06/10

Pedro what you did took courage.  I remember very clearly the first time I admitted the fact I was an atheist to myself and to the people that I care about.  Because they truly love me for who I am (thankfully), they respected me and my decision.  I am so glad that I made the decision to be honest with them.  Thank you so much for posting this, I found it moving.

ex-choir girl says:

09:05am | 09/06/10

Pedro, that was me last year. After attending church almost weekly for most of my 40 years, I decided one Sunday that I could no longer participate. I loved the rituals but the underlying belief was long gone. I felt a fraud.

My friends and family understood. It’s hard stepping back from an identity that I’d had for so long, but I’m glad I made the step. Thank you for sharing your experience.

Ally says:

11:45pm | 09/06/10

Pedro, it’s because atheism has been demonised by the general population that makes it so difficult to ‘come out of the closet’. For most older atheists, we have gone through a long process of changing from believing the religions we were indoctrinated into from childhood to our current position of non-belief. Some of the younger generation are lucky enough to not have to go through years of questioning ingrained beliefs as they weren’t brainwashed into a religion in the first place.

Good luck with your journey into the truth.

Eleanor says:

04:13pm | 07/06/10

Great analogy, Andrew.

Steely Dan says:

04:19pm | 07/06/10

Sorry Andrew, but I’m not likely to give much time to people who can’t spell the word they want to redefine.

I’m not wrestling with some inner religious demons, I’m completely ok with not having mystical sky-daddy.  But as long as religion is offered (and sometimes accepted) as an excuse for atrocities I’ll be telling people why they shouldn’t believe in their gods.

I don’t believe in god, which makes me an atheist.  I do believe in dispossessing people of their delusions through reason, and that makes me a responsible member of society.

Senor Hogtied says:

04:21pm | 07/06/10

Many parents have at some point had to convince someone that Santa does not exist.  Or at least, confirm the rumour that has been heard in the playground.

I have a lot of trouble accepting your “An athesist is a person who doesn’t tell you what they think but understands why other people think the way they think” argument.

David says:

04:27pm | 07/06/10

I’m not familiar with any definition of atheist which includes a proselytising fervour. I’ve made a few posts in here but I doubt I’ll convince anyone of the validity in my position in comparison to theirs. My desire to express myself does not hinge on any belief in a god (theism is a belief in a god and thus atheism is not believing in a god, nothing more).

Ofcourse atheists have beliefs, everyone has beliefs, but they don’t believe in a god that is all that is required to be an atheist. Furthermore, not all beliefs are a matter of faith, you can believe in something with good reason (I believe in gravity for example along the basis of repeated observation and immense body of scientific evidence). Nothing further applies to the definition of atheist. You could take two atheists and find a wide array of differing positions on various other issues, they only agree on the issue of god’s existence.

I also find it very strange you think a true atheist (google yourself ‘no true scotsman fallacy’ when you get the chance) would see beauty in believing in god (by extension of your santa analogy). I don’t see what is inherently beautiful about a belief, you need to apply further values and beliefs over this to made the leap from person A believes in god to person A’s belief in god is beautiful.

Help me out here, what am I missing? I’ll admit some impressive people have been theists but so have some horrid people. I don’t focus on one or the other, the belief in it’s isolation is neutral in terms of positive, negative, ugly, beautiful, etc. The implication, the impact, the use, the outcome of this belief could be one of these things, then again there is a taudry feature to any beautiful act (eg feeding the poor) if the motivation is to secure yourself an eternity in heaven. I find beauty in acts that are seflessly motivated (as in for no specific reward or outcome in the interest of the person performing the act) but only because I subscribe to humanistic principles and I’ve applied these to the situation (and I apply these to the religious and non-religious alike).

TJ says:

04:46pm | 07/06/10

I’m sorry Andrew but if the Atheists didn’t comment it would make for a boring blog, what you are suggesting is that under abuse and constant patronising from the theists that atheists will just sit back and not say a word, maybe have a smug smile on their face and just let comments that attack them personally just slide? that’s very naive

Chris L says:

06:53pm | 07/06/10

Andrew, if religious groups did not have any influence over law, policy or societal custom I would be happy to remain quiet about it.

Bubba Ray says:

06:32pm | 08/06/10

Mine’s Buddha, you can tell just by looking at me. Although that just might be my love of pizza and beer.

intepid says:

09:28pm | 07/06/10

Atheists generally regard religion itself as nuts, not the majority of adherents for whom it is more a cultural legacy than anything (the culture you were born into is an overwhelmingly strong predictor of the religion you adopt—so much for universal truth)

As for “asking atheists for a little respect and understanding”, I call total BS… religious people hold all the power and respect already, not giving a crap about atheists for the most part and demonizing them whenever their version of reality is challenged. And they don’t ask for respect, they demand it; they take it for granted that their worldview is morally superior, and they are offended when the status quo is questioned. The amount of respect and deference already granted to religious beliefs is wildly disproportional to the value or uniqueness (or truthfulness) of these beliefs.

And as for “get over it”, you sound like either an apologist or a defeatist… do you really think peoples’ minds can’t be changed through better education or appeals to reason? Western society is less overtly religious than it has been for a long time, it sure sounds like people are listening to new ideas to me.

Chris L says:

08:04am | 08/06/10

There wouldn’t be a word for atheist, but everyone would be one.

David says:

03:21am | 08/06/10

Your immortal soul, which no doubt you have no belief in but they very much do.

I’ve been tempted to produce similarly rude retorts to people in similar situations as yourself - my only real conviction against doing so is because I want to consistently present a calm and rational response to their claims and issues.

The reality is I’ve never argued anyone out of their faith (with them starting the discussion) but when I have a response to each and every one of their arguments for accepting their special flavour of faith they tire of the discussion and we can move on (maybe with some serious questions rolling around their mind but I hold little hope).

The majority of religious people I encounter however don’t behave like those you describe or the JW’s and Mormons I receive on my doorstep, mostly I think because they don’t have the certitude required to behave in such a way. This is also the main reason people get upset when religion is discussed, the anger and fear around the topic is directly linked to an individual’s own inability to support their beliefs - which in the bright light of scientific skepticism are absurd, they just don’t have it pointed out to them very often because so many other people share these beliefs.

Sanity is found in numbers and you and I are dissidents. But I’m sure you would agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

Ally says:

01:44pm | 08/06/10

I feel particularly sorry for the JWs. Only 144,000 true believers will be let into Heaven, so the vast majority of them are beaten before they even start to knock on your door!

Fr John I Fleming says:

11:59am | 08/06/10

“Most of the world’s wars start over religion.”  Evidence please.  I will accept what you say if you can show me 50% +1 of the world’s wars started over religion.  Betcha can’t!

Ally says:

01:21pm | 08/06/10

Fr John I Fleming,

Let’s start with the (many) Crusades and go on from there, shall we….

Over Religion -FREE WILLY says:

02:35pm | 08/06/10

Thanks Alley…Fr John…...God…evidence please? I will accept Cold Hard Proof

Luke says:

04:13pm | 08/06/10

I bet that greed caused more wars than religion…
btw…
All religions tell you what to believe because they are religions…
Deal with it…
If your tired of religion… dont post about it on articles and dont talk about it with friends… simple…
There is only like… a trillion other things you can do with your time…
You chose to post here and talk about the thing that your tired of… WHY???