NoGodBlog.com
A Free Service for Atheists from American Atheists
Post details: Question / Topic du Jour
05/19/07
Question / Topic du Jour
What frustrates you the most about the religious in America?
Comments:
Comment from:
What [Member]
What frustrates me the most is the ease with which the religious are manipulated en masse by power brokers. All a power broker has to do is pay homage to their core social issues (in the US these are abortion and homosexuality) and they will follow you anywhere.
But with each passing day it looks more and more like these lemmings' jackbooted march to heaven is headed right for a cl... Oh the humanity!
But with each passing day it looks more and more like these lemmings' jackbooted march to heaven is headed right for a cl... Oh the humanity!
05/19/07 @ 01:51
Comment from:
Krystalline Apostate [Member]
· http://biblioblography.blogspot.com
The way they whimper 'Martyrdom!' when criticized.
That, & the arrogance.
That, & the arrogance.
05/19/07 @ 03:20
Comment from:
evilatheistconquerer [Member]
Sorry that this is a little off-topic, but I thought it was pretty interesting. An italian university shut down on Friday so that a French professor who denies the Holocaust couldn't give a lecture.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070518/ap_on_re_eu/italy_holocaust_denial
And what frustrates me the most about the religious in America is that they usually lack debate skills but still claim to have won the debate. Also, they can't even envision a society with a de-emphasis on religion. I mean come on! That's all I'm asking for, de-emphasize religion, keep it out of the government, only have it in your personal life. Is that really too much to ask for?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070518/ap_on_re_eu/italy_holocaust_denial
And what frustrates me the most about the religious in America is that they usually lack debate skills but still claim to have won the debate. Also, they can't even envision a society with a de-emphasis on religion. I mean come on! That's all I'm asking for, de-emphasize religion, keep it out of the government, only have it in your personal life. Is that really too much to ask for?
05/19/07 @ 03:54
Comment from:
DeepDiver [Member]
The bigotry. The nose in your business. The lies they spread. Oh, and the cockiness, as observed in King george.
05/19/07 @ 07:23
Comment from:
Ren [Member]
The question might as well be, 'What frustrates you most about the ignorant in America'?
In a word: Hypocracy!
In a word: Hypocracy!
05/19/07 @ 08:13
Comment from:
Chaos Engineer [Member]
The hypocrisy. The inability to understand Jefferson. Rampant misogyny. Lousy music.
And on and on and...
And on and on and...
05/19/07 @ 08:19
Comment from:
imaskeptic [Member]
if i were in high school and a classmate said he was getting ready for santa to visit his home(hoping the chimney was ample for santa's girth and that he wasn't tired of the pecan sandies and 2% milk that the 17 year old student always left out for him)...i would have to give the kid a wedgie of the big bang type for his ridiculous superstition....imagine it!!! all other students would encourage this punishment for the santa-believer's irrational belief..i could sell tickets...sadly these same students would be looking forward to the new car they had been praying for every sunday..THUS....i cannot respect X-tians for this reason...they are no different from the wedgie receiving air-head...can't they tell a parental story from reality?? I just can't take it any more!!....and to add to my misery, we in indiana have "in god we trust" license plates now....and a third of vehicles have them already...i can't even get away from the idiots when i drive....can someone help me? my poor neck is terminally sore from my constant head-shaking and forehead slapping? no amount of beta blocker can control my blood pressure since i am forced to observe all day, (in this pool-table-flat state of indiana) a sunblocking, snow-capped, unscalable mountain of stupidity . yaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!
05/19/07 @ 08:53
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
What a great thread...
Not only is the question from a position of superiority and arrogance...but so far, so are all of the answers...
Wow...I don't believe you've ever asked a question that reveals so much truth about a non-believers heart...
Not only is the question from a position of superiority and arrogance...but so far, so are all of the answers...
Wow...I don't believe you've ever asked a question that reveals so much truth about a non-believers heart...
Don't understand Jefferson...
ROFL...is a "classic" example...
or...
The nose in your business
hahaha...I guess that wouldn't apply to the "Rally for Reason" crowd and their (AA) supporters...
Yes I agree...in a word...HYPOCRISY
05/19/07 @ 09:07
Comment from:
SunMostHigh [Member]
What frustrates me the most about the religious in America? THAT THEY ARE RELIGIOUS!
05/19/07 @ 09:22
Comment from:
Ren [Member]
Phreed-hem,
Since the question was: What frustrates you the most about the religious in America? I am glad to see that we agree about SOMETHING.
Chew on this. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5934072
Dr. Laura son linked to lurid Web page
Yes I agree...in a word...HYPOCRISY
Since the question was: What frustrates you the most about the religious in America? I am glad to see that we agree about SOMETHING.
Chew on this. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5934072
Dr. Laura son linked to lurid Web page
05/19/07 @ 09:22
Comment from:
Boise Jim [Member]
The troll answered it for us-
Ignorance.
Ignorance.
05/19/07 @ 10:07
Comment from:
hzach [Member]
In one word: ignorance. While I believe there are three attributes required to be religious: ignorance, fear, and superstition, ignorance is the first ingredient. I have just completed a treatise titled "A Look At The Historicity of Jesus which presents, what I believe, is a compelling case that there was no person that is depicted as Jesus in the Bible.
I would be pleased to post it on the Americal Atheist web site (if asked) or provid it to anyone who requests it. Just e-mail me at hzach@cableone.net
I would be pleased to post it on the Americal Atheist web site (if asked) or provid it to anyone who requests it. Just e-mail me at hzach@cableone.net
05/19/07 @ 10:39
Comment from:
imaskeptic [Member]
phreedm...arrogance is thinking you know all...it is not the same as frustration about a worldview based on superstition...you believe in santa clause, and if you are of high school age...you deserve a wedgie(which is not exactly the same as the killing crusades of santa's helpers) a wedgie never killed anybody...by the way,boxers or briefs?...i need to prepare
05/19/07 @ 10:40
Comment from:
remy [Member]
It's their inability to think... critically... coupled with their... intractable belief... that they ARE thinking critically...
05/19/07 @ 10:48
Comment from:
mxracer652 [Member]
Flintstone:
Talk about projection phred, if Dave's question was phrased about anything other than religion, you would have not called the question arrogant. The screams of superiority & arrogance are nothing more than the typical xian persecution complex.
Critique religion = arrogant
Critique politics = no problem
Critique society = no problem
You do realize how hypocritical you look to everyone else here don't you?
Instead of whining, why not participate? Surely you could find something that you dislike about your own brand? Or have fun answering what frustrates you the most with atheists.
Doesn't the grumpy old bastard routine get old?
My biggest frustration, the dual boot scenario. They are rational with every other aspect of their lives, but if they hit the luck of the draw, godidit.
Not only is the question from a position of superiority and arrogance...but so far, so are all of the answers...
Talk about projection phred, if Dave's question was phrased about anything other than religion, you would have not called the question arrogant. The screams of superiority & arrogance are nothing more than the typical xian persecution complex.
Critique religion = arrogant
Critique politics = no problem
Critique society = no problem
You do realize how hypocritical you look to everyone else here don't you?
Instead of whining, why not participate? Surely you could find something that you dislike about your own brand? Or have fun answering what frustrates you the most with atheists.
Doesn't the grumpy old bastard routine get old?
My biggest frustration, the dual boot scenario. They are rational with every other aspect of their lives, but if they hit the luck of the draw, godidit.
05/19/07 @ 10:53
Comment from:
imaskeptic [Member]
remy.....that is one great sentence!!!!! salute
05/19/07 @ 10:53
Comment from:
cree357 [Member]
What bothers me is how it is assumed that anything that science can't explain must be God. It is like all scientific discoveries have to be made simultaneously. We used to think the earth was the center of teh universe right?
05/19/07 @ 11:00
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: imaskeptic
AGREED !!!
So is it not arrogance to believe one knows ALL and claims..."There is no God"?
phreedm...arrogance is thinking you know all...
AGREED !!!
So is it not arrogance to believe one knows ALL and claims..."There is no God"?
05/19/07 @ 11:08
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: mxracer652
I believe I did...
Or have fun answering what frustrates you the most with atheists.
I believe I did...
05/19/07 @ 11:10
Comment from:
Krystalline Apostate [Member]
· http://biblioblography.blogspot.com
Well, I see our self-appointed 'conscience' has made an appearance.
Now let's see if our self-appointed baby-sitter/father figurehead does.
Now let's see if our self-appointed baby-sitter/father figurehead does.
05/19/07 @ 11:48
Comment from:
Ren [Member]
Phreed-hem,
Why do you assume that one must know ALL, in order to know there is no god/s?
I postulate one need only know how to reason, to know that a god-thingy of any kind is...well, unreasonable.
So is it not arrogance to believe one knows ALL and claims..."There is no God"?
Why do you assume that one must know ALL, in order to know there is no god/s?
I postulate one need only know how to reason, to know that a god-thingy of any kind is...well, unreasonable.
05/19/07 @ 11:51
Comment from:
bud [Member]
the word "religion" here and through out the world. it seems to give creadence to what are in reality nothing more than primitive, bloody violent "superstitions". without which we might "finally" achieve world peace and an actual "civil"ization. and with which we never will...peace
05/19/07 @ 12:00
Comment from:
karen [Member]
What bothers me most about religion is that it is everywhere I go. If it were to go about its business unnoticed, that would be fine. But though I have told it both politely and impolitely that I do not want it in my life, it continues to dance around like a 5 year old saying either "Please, please, PLEASE!" or "You're going to be deathly sorry!"
Religion is a plague.
Religion is a plague.
05/19/07 @ 12:31
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Ren,
So, you assume that if one know's how to reason...they will know all?
Yes, I "postulate" that one would need to know "all" in order to be positive that there is not God...
I'd ask that you'd explain how your reasoning skills have allowed you to know that there is no God, but I'm sure the thought police would (once again) claim I'm hijacking a thread...
I'll just say yes...it is arrogance to assume one's own reasoning skills prove that God does not exist...
So, you assume that if one know's how to reason...they will know all?
Yes, I "postulate" that one would need to know "all" in order to be positive that there is not God...
I'd ask that you'd explain how your reasoning skills have allowed you to know that there is no God, but I'm sure the thought police would (once again) claim I'm hijacking a thread...
I'll just say yes...it is arrogance to assume one's own reasoning skills prove that God does not exist...
05/19/07 @ 12:34
Comment from:
wsder [Member]
If the religious would stick to the word of god, they would be much more tolerable. The bible has many great passages defining rules of behavior that go overlooked because the faithful follow the word of man (a priest) and not the "divine"word of god. If they take some time and actually read the text that they purport to adhere to, we would see rallies demanding stoning as a punishment to blaspheme. (Leviticus 24:10-16) Or my favorite Exodus 35:2 (For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.)
Then people could see the real insanity of Christianity, and other religions. Alas, the leaders of the faithful only preach what they think they can get away with. Most of which is the very simple, "we're good, and their bad."
So, the question is, if god has a whole list of things that his followers must do, and his followers only do the things a man(the priest) tells them to do, are they really following god, or just a guy that's a lousy translator?
Then people could see the real insanity of Christianity, and other religions. Alas, the leaders of the faithful only preach what they think they can get away with. Most of which is the very simple, "we're good, and their bad."
So, the question is, if god has a whole list of things that his followers must do, and his followers only do the things a man(the priest) tells them to do, are they really following god, or just a guy that's a lousy translator?
05/19/07 @ 12:46
Comment from:
SonnyDenbow [Member]
The hypocrisy. If the Christian god is all about love why do Christians preach hate and intolerance for anyone outside their flavor of the religion?
Also, I just can't take any religion seriously that comes knocking on my door trying to sell their dogma like it was a set of encyclopedias.
Also, I just can't take any religion seriously that comes knocking on my door trying to sell their dogma like it was a set of encyclopedias.
05/19/07 @ 12:48
Comment from:
Dangerman [Member]
For me it's the glares and people talking under their breathe and the almost instant distrust and "vibe" I get from them when they find out I'm not a believer.
Also the fact that I'm supposed to be completely ok with their beliefs and the way they shove them down my throat, but the moment I talk about my beliefs I've gone too far.
Plus their whole issue with stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortion. I would love to have a new lung grown for me if I ever come down with lung cancer...but I guess god would just want me to die. I'm sure glad Europeans are most compassionate than god is, since they would regrow my lung with their stem cells.
Also the fact that I'm supposed to be completely ok with their beliefs and the way they shove them down my throat, but the moment I talk about my beliefs I've gone too far.
Plus their whole issue with stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortion. I would love to have a new lung grown for me if I ever come down with lung cancer...but I guess god would just want me to die. I'm sure glad Europeans are most compassionate than god is, since they would regrow my lung with their stem cells.
05/19/07 @ 12:49
Comment from:
Dangerman [Member]
*people talking under their BREATH. sorry everyone. lol
05/19/07 @ 12:51
Comment from:
Apple_Christmas [Member]
One thing that really really frustrates me is how many (most?) people consider religion the most important thing there can possibly be and give short shrift to the skeptical scientific framework that has made our lives so good, and so easy.
Another thing is how you can't convince some people that you can indeed be happy and fulfilled without religion.
Another thing is how you can't convince some people that you can indeed be happy and fulfilled without religion.
05/19/07 @ 13:11
Comment from:
Ren [Member]
Phreed-hem,
Where in the above statement do I claim to BE POSITIVE there is no god?
Again, where have I claimed to PROVE that god does not exist?
I have simply stated that with all that I know about the natural world, I do not believe in a supernatural one of any kind. New evidence could always present itself in the future that would change my current beliefs. The key here is, my beliefs are based upon evidence, not faith.
I postulate one need only know how to reason, to know that a god-thingy of any kind is...well, unreasonable.
Where in the above statement do I claim to BE POSITIVE there is no god?
Again, where have I claimed to PROVE that god does not exist?
I have simply stated that with all that I know about the natural world, I do not believe in a supernatural one of any kind. New evidence could always present itself in the future that would change my current beliefs. The key here is, my beliefs are based upon evidence, not faith.
05/19/07 @ 13:20
Comment from:
Apple_Christmas [Member]
wsder:
I disagree. When people stick to the word of God, they wind up flying planes into buildings (among other atrocities too numerous to mention).
But are you saying that things like Exodus 35:2 are the words of man and not God? Would God's "true" words necessarily be good? I'm not sure I understand your position.
If the religious would stick to the word of god, they would be much more tolerable.
I disagree. When people stick to the word of God, they wind up flying planes into buildings (among other atrocities too numerous to mention).
But are you saying that things like Exodus 35:2 are the words of man and not God? Would God's "true" words necessarily be good? I'm not sure I understand your position.
05/19/07 @ 13:20
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
wsder...ever hear of the word Covenant?
05/19/07 @ 13:22
Comment from:
karen [Member]
Another thing is how you can't convince some people that you can indeed be happy and fulfilled without religion.
Ramen! Apple_C!
I would bet that many just TELL themselves they are happy and fulfilled, but don't really believe it. Thus, they are still scared shitless about death and all. Then they are faced with those of us who don't even pretend to believe there's a skydaddy or an afterlife and wonder how can we possibly be happier than they are?
They can't understand that facing mortality frees one up to lead a full life and to really and truly enjoy what one gets from the one life available.
05/19/07 @ 13:24
Comment from:
Phideaux [Member]
What frustrates me the most?
The extreme irrational thinking. The inability to interpret patterns correctly. The blatant disregard for logic and reason. The acceptance of magical thinking and faith as a valid way to obtain information. The divisiveness. The manipulation by fear and shame. The wasted time and resources spent on ritual and religious nonsense.
Don't get me started.
The extreme irrational thinking. The inability to interpret patterns correctly. The blatant disregard for logic and reason. The acceptance of magical thinking and faith as a valid way to obtain information. The divisiveness. The manipulation by fear and shame. The wasted time and resources spent on ritual and religious nonsense.
Don't get me started.
05/19/07 @ 14:03
Comment from:
CAB4reason [Member]
Wow, where to start?
I guess what peeves me the most is the arrogance - that all around them believe exactly as they do without ever taking into consideration (or caring) that I DON'T!
And their trying to push religion in every facet of our lives.
To quote Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson), "Go peddle crazy somewhere else."
I guess what peeves me the most is the arrogance - that all around them believe exactly as they do without ever taking into consideration (or caring) that I DON'T!
And their trying to push religion in every facet of our lives.
To quote Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson), "Go peddle crazy somewhere else."
05/19/07 @ 14:36
Comment from:
karen [Member]
How about that whole "This country was founded on the Bible and God" schtick? That's pretty irksome.
05/19/07 @ 14:48
Comment from:
mxracer652 [Member]
phred:
No, you didn't, you claimed we had an air of superiority & arrogance for bringing up a reasonable question, which is a gigantic pile of BS.
This is the classic xian persecution complex.
I believe I did...
No, you didn't, you claimed we had an air of superiority & arrogance for bringing up a reasonable question, which is a gigantic pile of BS.
This is the classic xian persecution complex.
It's no more arrogant than any one of the billions of faith heads who claim "There is a god, and it loves me". After all, they don't know everything, right? I'd have never expected you to be so post modern.
So is it not arrogance to believe one knows ALL and claims..."There is no God"?
05/19/07 @ 15:01
Comment from:
evilatheistconquerer [Member]
Or the arrogance that their religion is the only right one and every other religion is wrong.
The other day there were a couple of women collecting donations for a battered women organization in town outside of the grocery store. So I go to give them a donation and you know what they say to me? "God bless." And written all over the donation jar is "Jesus Saves." I admit, I'm a coward and didn't say anything because I was in the middle of redneck territory in alabama. But apparently I can't even be sympathetic to such a worthwhile cause without being religious.
Or how about the fact that if you don't go to church then people think you are going to be some kind of serial killer because you aren't learning morals? You know, I'd like to see some statistics on how many serial killers are religious and/or attend church. I bet more are religious than atheist.
The other day there were a couple of women collecting donations for a battered women organization in town outside of the grocery store. So I go to give them a donation and you know what they say to me? "God bless." And written all over the donation jar is "Jesus Saves." I admit, I'm a coward and didn't say anything because I was in the middle of redneck territory in alabama. But apparently I can't even be sympathetic to such a worthwhile cause without being religious.
Or how about the fact that if you don't go to church then people think you are going to be some kind of serial killer because you aren't learning morals? You know, I'd like to see some statistics on how many serial killers are religious and/or attend church. I bet more are religious than atheist.
05/19/07 @ 15:21
Comment from:
vjack [Member]
· http://www.atheistrev.com
The first thing that comes to mind would be that they just can't keep their silly delusion to themselves.
05/19/07 @ 15:35
Comment from:
Apple_Christmas [Member]
**OFF TOPIC**
I had jury duty on Thursday, and this was the first time I've ever actually made it into the courtroom. As a group (there were about 20 of us) were asked to "swear or affirm etc... so help you God. Later when I was selected for the jury, we were again asked as a group to "swear... so help you God", and never given the chance to choose to "affirm" instead. I didn't want to rock the boat, so I went along with it.
I had jury duty on Thursday, and this was the first time I've ever actually made it into the courtroom. As a group (there were about 20 of us) were asked to "swear or affirm etc... so help you God. Later when I was selected for the jury, we were again asked as a group to "swear... so help you God", and never given the chance to choose to "affirm" instead. I didn't want to rock the boat, so I went along with it.
05/19/07 @ 15:37
Comment from:
CAB4reason [Member]
eac, isn't it funny how many killers and rapists suddenly "git jeesus" after they're locked up? As if this makes them all better now. Pfft!
Your experience with the battered women donation is exactly why I don't donate to the Sallie any more. Can't they just help people without all the preaching?
Your experience with the battered women donation is exactly why I don't donate to the Sallie any more. Can't they just help people without all the preaching?
05/19/07 @ 15:45
Comment from:
rainbows4dinosaurs [Member]
· http://www.myspace.com/thedrivensnowmusic
What frustrates me the most? That's easy... bullshit statements like this:
It's like this magic pill they take that they believe inoculates them from any criticism or responsibility. They have 'faith', therefore they need not explain themselves.
Yeah, that's pretty frustrating.
So is it not arrogance to believe one knows ALL and claims..."There is no God"?Is it not arrogance to claim one knows enough to assert that there is a god? Oh yeah, you don't really need to know anything, do you? All you need is 'faith'.
It's like this magic pill they take that they believe inoculates them from any criticism or responsibility. They have 'faith', therefore they need not explain themselves.
Yeah, that's pretty frustrating.
05/19/07 @ 16:29
Comment from:
cry4turtles [Member]
Three words: Worship, Obey, and Master. I despise those words.
05/19/07 @ 16:36
Comment from:
CAL [Member]
The thing that I dislike most about religion is the brainwashing that goes on.
It truely saddens me to see little kids be forced to go to church at a young age, instead of under their own will. Most people are religious only because it is generation upon generation of brainwashing peer pressure. Just think if they let people choose for themselves, that would fix most of the problems we have with religion today.
It truely saddens me to see little kids be forced to go to church at a young age, instead of under their own will. Most people are religious only because it is generation upon generation of brainwashing peer pressure. Just think if they let people choose for themselves, that would fix most of the problems we have with religion today.
05/19/07 @ 16:42
Comment from:
evilatheistconquerer [Member]
cry4turtles,
That reminded me of the feeling I had when I became atheist: a feeling of great relief and freedom, knowing that I wasn't being "watched" by some supernatural being and that my future was now open and free. I pity those who struggle daily searching for ways to get into some blissful afterlife that doesn't even exist.
That reminded me of the feeling I had when I became atheist: a feeling of great relief and freedom, knowing that I wasn't being "watched" by some supernatural being and that my future was now open and free. I pity those who struggle daily searching for ways to get into some blissful afterlife that doesn't even exist.
05/19/07 @ 16:53
Comment from:
Tuen [Member]
What bothers me is that the religious believe all the answers are in a book most have never even read.
In this regard, it's not that they're wrong.....they're not even wrong! Even the nastiness of hypocrisy falls short when dealing with this level of absurdity.
Intellectual immaturity is not just a result of religious belief, it's a prerequisite.
In this regard, it's not that they're wrong.....they're not even wrong! Even the nastiness of hypocrisy falls short when dealing with this level of absurdity.
Intellectual immaturity is not just a result of religious belief, it's a prerequisite.
05/19/07 @ 16:59
Comment from:
DD Dropout [Member]
People who claim that atheists can have no morality and that in the absence of the threat of their Hell we must murder, rape and rob at every chance we have to get away with it.
They don't seem to hear themselves saying that they believe they would lose their moral compass if ever they lost their religious convictions.
Also the way they can never hear the evidence you present to them in a debate. It amounts to dishonesty when they return again and again to disproven points.
Too bad that commandment against dishonesty didn't work a little better for them.
They don't seem to hear themselves saying that they believe they would lose their moral compass if ever they lost their religious convictions.
Also the way they can never hear the evidence you present to them in a debate. It amounts to dishonesty when they return again and again to disproven points.
Too bad that commandment against dishonesty didn't work a little better for them.
05/19/07 @ 17:03
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: Ren
Fine...I stand corrected. You do not claim to be an atheist.
Here however I would kindly disagree...whether we admit it or not, we all function on faith at some point...
Where in the above statement do I claim to BE POSITIVE there is no god?
Again, where have I claimed to PROVE that god does not exist?
Fine...I stand corrected. You do not claim to be an atheist.
The key here is, my beliefs are based upon evidence, not faith.
Here however I would kindly disagree...whether we admit it or not, we all function on faith at some point...
05/19/07 @ 17:19
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: mxracer652 [Member] ·
Of course I did...you asked me to have some fun and state what bothers me about atheists...lighten up a bit mx...life is way too short...
Now this is a stretch...I'm wondering how you made the leap from me stating arrogance to personal persecution...
But hey, it's a lazy Saturday afternoon...enjoy it...
No, you didn't, you claimed we had an air of superiority & arrogance for bringing up a reasonable question, which is a gigantic pile of BS.
Of course I did...you asked me to have some fun and state what bothers me about atheists...lighten up a bit mx...life is way too short...
This is the classic xian persecution complex.
Now this is a stretch...I'm wondering how you made the leap from me stating arrogance to personal persecution...
But hey, it's a lazy Saturday afternoon...enjoy it...
05/19/07 @ 17:23
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Apple...
Hmmm...more proof of the Myth eh...?
How can anyone in their right mind believe in the myth...because all the while we've been saying "so help me God" in the court rooms for 225 years...and yet NO ONE claimed it was unconstitutional...?
I guess our Founding Fathers didn't understand Jefferson either...
Give Dave a call...AA will file suit for you and cash in...
Later when I was selected for the jury, we were again asked as a group to "swear... so help you God", and never given the chance to choose to "affirm" instead.
Hmmm...more proof of the Myth eh...?
How can anyone in their right mind believe in the myth...because all the while we've been saying "so help me God" in the court rooms for 225 years...and yet NO ONE claimed it was unconstitutional...?
I guess our Founding Fathers didn't understand Jefferson either...
Give Dave a call...AA will file suit for you and cash in...
05/19/07 @ 17:30
Comment from:
Apple_Christmas [Member]
phreedm:
You've got your own private definition of what an atheist is (and is not), and it's not fair to foist it upon people who would describe themselves as atheists.
Similarly the Westboro Baptist Church claims that people who disagree with them aren't really Christians. I'm sure you see the illogic in that. Likewise, your narrow definition of atheism doesn't cover all varieties atheism. You do not have to state positively and definitively that you know or can prove that there is no god to qualify as an atheist.
Why are you in a position to say who is and who isn't an atheist anyway?
Fine...I stand corrected. You do not claim to be an atheist.
You've got your own private definition of what an atheist is (and is not), and it's not fair to foist it upon people who would describe themselves as atheists.
Similarly the Westboro Baptist Church claims that people who disagree with them aren't really Christians. I'm sure you see the illogic in that. Likewise, your narrow definition of atheism doesn't cover all varieties atheism. You do not have to state positively and definitively that you know or can prove that there is no god to qualify as an atheist.
Why are you in a position to say who is and who isn't an atheist anyway?
05/19/07 @ 17:34
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: rainbows4dinosaurs
A bit touchy today...?
Actually you're exactly right...I see you still remember some things from your Sunday school days...
Romans 10:17
2 Corinthians 5:7
and so do you...it's just a difference of placement...
Oh yeah, you don't really need to know anything, do you? All you need is 'faith'.
A bit touchy today...?
Actually you're exactly right...I see you still remember some things from your Sunday school days...
Romans 10:17
2 Corinthians 5:7
and so do you...it's just a difference of placement...
05/19/07 @ 17:34
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: cry4turtles
So who's your master...? Yourself?
Three words: Worship, Obey, and Master
So who's your master...? Yourself?
05/19/07 @ 17:36
Comment from:
Apple_Christmas [Member]
phreedm:
Is doesn't imply ought.
Hmmm...more proof of the Myth eh...?
Is doesn't imply ought.
05/19/07 @ 17:45
Comment from:
rainbows4dinosaurs [Member]
· http://www.myspace.com/thedrivensnowmusic
Phreedm,
If faith is everything your world-view trumps it up to be, then what point would you be trying to make with this tired assertion that I live by faith as well? Even if that were true (that I live by faith and not 'site'), how are we to determine which 'faith' is true? There is only one way to find the right answer, and that is through evidence (or 'site').
Once again, biblical logic eats itself.
If faith is everything your world-view trumps it up to be, then what point would you be trying to make with this tired assertion that I live by faith as well? Even if that were true (that I live by faith and not 'site'), how are we to determine which 'faith' is true? There is only one way to find the right answer, and that is through evidence (or 'site').
Once again, biblical logic eats itself.
05/19/07 @ 18:19
Comment from:
Tuen [Member]
phreedm
..off course but regarding Apple_Christmas's comment on your definition of atheism:
Defining offensive ideology stereotypically is a tendency we all have. Recognizing the behavior within ourselves is always more conducive to productive debate.
...here's my Dawkinesque slant on atheism (self-indulgently reprinted from an earlier text)
You can’t prove God exists. You can't proof God doesn't exist. But the overwhelming scientific evidence is so great against his existence; it is the wise person who lives his life accordingly.
..off course but regarding Apple_Christmas's comment on your definition of atheism:
Defining offensive ideology stereotypically is a tendency we all have. Recognizing the behavior within ourselves is always more conducive to productive debate.
...here's my Dawkinesque slant on atheism (self-indulgently reprinted from an earlier text)
You can’t prove God exists. You can't proof God doesn't exist. But the overwhelming scientific evidence is so great against his existence; it is the wise person who lives his life accordingly.
05/19/07 @ 18:53
Comment from:
GodFree&Glad [Member]
Apple_Christmas
If you don't mind saying could you identify the state this jury duty took place in.
My spouse and I have served on juries in Indiana and in Texas (in more than one county in Texas), but have never been asked to either affirm or do the so-help-me-god crap.
Your experience makes me angry. I understand the going-along thing and don't fault you for your decision. We have to do what we have to do and it isn't always a matter of what we'd like to do.
If you don't mind saying could you identify the state this jury duty took place in.
My spouse and I have served on juries in Indiana and in Texas (in more than one county in Texas), but have never been asked to either affirm or do the so-help-me-god crap.
Your experience makes me angry. I understand the going-along thing and don't fault you for your decision. We have to do what we have to do and it isn't always a matter of what we'd like to do.
05/19/07 @ 19:17
Comment from:
Ren [Member]
Apple_Christmas,
Not to worry. You need not ask permission to exercise your constitutional rights. The next time it comes up, when they say, "so help you god", you reply, "I do so affirm". I reenlisted in the Army several times, and that was always the way it was done.
Phreed-hem,
Wrong again. I have always maintained that I do not believe in gods of any kind. Even YOUR God. However, my Atheism isn't based on faith, it is based upon empirical evidence. As in: There is no evidence, what-so-ever, for the supernatural. Until said evidence makes itself, well, evident, I will remain an Atheist.
Not to worry. You need not ask permission to exercise your constitutional rights. The next time it comes up, when they say, "so help you god", you reply, "I do so affirm". I reenlisted in the Army several times, and that was always the way it was done.
Phreed-hem,
Fine...I stand corrected. You do not claim to be an atheist.
Wrong again. I have always maintained that I do not believe in gods of any kind. Even YOUR God. However, my Atheism isn't based on faith, it is based upon empirical evidence. As in: There is no evidence, what-so-ever, for the supernatural. Until said evidence makes itself, well, evident, I will remain an Atheist.
05/19/07 @ 19:23
Comment from:
Apple_Christmas [Member]
GodFree&Glad:
This was in Massachusetts. The first time they asked us, they told us to raise our right hands and "swear or affirm", and then added the "so help you God" thing at the end. The second time, they left the affirm part out (and said "so help you God" again).
I wasn't about to make a big deal about it since the defendant was right there, obviously a very big moment for him, and I didn't want to make a scene... put myself at the center of attention when it really was not at all about me. But still I feel like it's pretty stupid to do the whole God thing in court. Do people really think that swearing to God will prevent anyone, Christians included, from acting dishonestly?
This was in Massachusetts. The first time they asked us, they told us to raise our right hands and "swear or affirm", and then added the "so help you God" thing at the end. The second time, they left the affirm part out (and said "so help you God" again).
I wasn't about to make a big deal about it since the defendant was right there, obviously a very big moment for him, and I didn't want to make a scene... put myself at the center of attention when it really was not at all about me. But still I feel like it's pretty stupid to do the whole God thing in court. Do people really think that swearing to God will prevent anyone, Christians included, from acting dishonestly?
05/19/07 @ 19:26
Comment from:
Jesin [Member]
The hypocrisy, although I must admit I see some of that in atheists as well, the tendency to just say “I'm right” and to present their own heartfelt convictions as evidence, etcetera.
Another thing that annoys me about many of the posters on this board is the overuse of ellipses…
I may post more later, or I may not, but I don't have time now.
Another thing that annoys me about many of the posters on this board is the overuse of ellipses…
I may post more later, or I may not, but I don't have time now.
05/19/07 @ 21:05
Comment from:
kosher dilemma [Member]
Religious people sound like a badly scratched LP.
Also...
I am still wondering why the FAA don't revoke the licenses of pilots praying in cockpits but they send to a psychiatrist and/or a potential revocation anyone reporting a UFO. They should deal with both the same way.
Also...
I am still wondering why the FAA don't revoke the licenses of pilots praying in cockpits but they send to a psychiatrist and/or a potential revocation anyone reporting a UFO. They should deal with both the same way.
05/19/07 @ 21:35
Comment from:
st.lucifer [Member]
Lapdogs. Definitely lapdogs. Especially catholic lapdogs. I mean, you don't know the meaning of subservient lapdog then when you hear a catholic defending Pope, Church or their policy. Last defense I heard, the conquistadors and missionaries brought "the light of faith" to "satan serving pagans". Makes me vomit.
As for phrdm:
Yeah, sure. Difference being, my faith builds highrises, planes, nuclear powerplants, space shuttles, giant telescopes, splits atoms, cures myriads of maladies, digs into and explains nature, and helps us surpass our natural limitations.
Whereas your faith does what exactly?
Just remember, next time when you fly, that that plane was built on "faith" of science.
As for arrogance and hubris:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1085,The-Greatest-Act-of-Human-Hubris,Andy-Diamos-Sporefrog
As for phrdm:
whether we admit it or not, we all function on faith at some point...
Yeah, sure. Difference being, my faith builds highrises, planes, nuclear powerplants, space shuttles, giant telescopes, splits atoms, cures myriads of maladies, digs into and explains nature, and helps us surpass our natural limitations.
Whereas your faith does what exactly?
Just remember, next time when you fly, that that plane was built on "faith" of science.
As for arrogance and hubris:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1085,The-Greatest-Act-of-Human-Hubris,Andy-Diamos-Sporefrog
05/19/07 @ 21:56
Comment from:
CAB4reason [Member]
Ren, thank you for the advice about saying "I do so affirm", instead of the "so help me gawd" crap. I will certainly remember that if I'm ever in Apple Christmas' situation.
I'm surprised that this happened in Mass, though. I always thought of Mass as a more progressive state, unlike the Bible-belt South.
I'm wondering if any jurisdictions still shove a Bible in your face and make you put you hand on it at a swearing in. Have any of you experienced that? If faced with that situation, I would put my right hand up and the other behind my back.
I'm surprised that this happened in Mass, though. I always thought of Mass as a more progressive state, unlike the Bible-belt South.
I'm wondering if any jurisdictions still shove a Bible in your face and make you put you hand on it at a swearing in. Have any of you experienced that? If faced with that situation, I would put my right hand up and the other behind my back.
05/19/07 @ 23:40
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: rainbows4dinosaurs
Nothing could be farther from the truth...
There is only one way to find the right answer, and that is through evidence (or 'site').
Nothing could be farther from the truth...
05/20/07 @ 00:21
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: Tuen
Actually it was Isaac Asimov who made your statement...
You can’t prove God exists. You can't proof God doesn't exist. But the overwhelming scientific evidence is so great against his existence; it is the wise person who lives his life accordingly.
Actually it was Isaac Asimov who made your statement...
05/20/07 @ 00:27
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: Ren
Huh...? "atheism is based upon empirical evidence"...as in "no evidence"...ok....
Next...
my Atheism isn't based on faith, it is based upon empirical evidence. As in: There is no evidence, what-so-ever, for the supernatural. Until said evidence makes itself, well, evident, I will remain an Atheist.
Huh...? "atheism is based upon empirical evidence"...as in "no evidence"...ok....
Next...
05/20/07 @ 00:35
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
Comment from: st.lucifer
My faith builds highrises, planes, nuclear powerplants, space shuttles, giant telescopes, splits atoms, cures myriads of maladies, digs into and explains nature, and helps us surpass our natural limitations...
It especially allows ME to surpass my natural limitations...and in all seriousness, this is a definate difference...
According to r4d atheists don't believe in anything that cannot be observed or seen...how do they know that they can exceed their natural limitations...?
Whereas your faith does what exactly?
My faith builds highrises, planes, nuclear powerplants, space shuttles, giant telescopes, splits atoms, cures myriads of maladies, digs into and explains nature, and helps us surpass our natural limitations...
It especially allows ME to surpass my natural limitations...and in all seriousness, this is a definate difference...
According to r4d atheists don't believe in anything that cannot be observed or seen...how do they know that they can exceed their natural limitations...?
05/20/07 @ 00:40
Comment from:
Reed Braden [Member]
· http://unorthodoxatheism.blogspot.com/
What frustrates me the most about the religious in America?
Phreedm.
Phreedm.
05/20/07 @ 00:41
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
****WARNING WARNING WILL ROGERS****
Here's a warning for some movie goers here...knowing how overly sensitive many on this board are to the sight of a cross on a water tower 6 states away...or looking across the dining room at the local Cracker Barrel and seeing a family hold hands and say grace 6 tables away...
DO NOT see the new Spiderman 3...
My daughter is in town and we both just got home from seeing it...Not only is Spiderman saved under a cross...there's prayer and forgiveness...
Who knows...it might give many of you nightmares...
Here's a warning for some movie goers here...knowing how overly sensitive many on this board are to the sight of a cross on a water tower 6 states away...or looking across the dining room at the local Cracker Barrel and seeing a family hold hands and say grace 6 tables away...
DO NOT see the new Spiderman 3...
My daughter is in town and we both just got home from seeing it...Not only is Spiderman saved under a cross...there's prayer and forgiveness...
Who knows...it might give many of you nightmares...
05/20/07 @ 00:47
Comment from:
Krystalline Apostate [Member]
· http://biblioblography.blogspot.com
phreddy - it's WARNING WARNING WILL ROBINSON
& I'll probably watch it anyways.
No getting away from the religious folderol.
It's called induction, you lunatic.
We're not the cardboard caricatures you make us out to be.
& I'll probably watch it anyways.
No getting away from the religious folderol.
According to r4d atheists don't believe in anything that cannot be observed or seen...how do they know that they can exceed their natural limitations...?
It's called induction, you lunatic.
We're not the cardboard caricatures you make us out to be.
05/20/07 @ 01:36
Comment from:
Dangerman [Member]
I thought it was DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON. I need to brush up on my lost in space.
I think the cheesiest scene in Spiderman 3 was when he lands on that building in front of the clearly computer animated American flag. I was like "come one...lame!"
Favorite line though "You want forgiveness, go find religion"
HAHAHAHA, I'm totally using that!
I think the cheesiest scene in Spiderman 3 was when he lands on that building in front of the clearly computer animated American flag. I was like "come one...lame!"
Favorite line though "You want forgiveness, go find religion"
HAHAHAHA, I'm totally using that!
05/20/07 @ 02:07
Comment from:
Tuen [Member]
phreedm says
"Actually it was Isaac Asimov who made your statement"
Are you suggesting I plagiarized Asimov? If not, I misunderstood and apologize.
Otherwise, I've never read Asimov. But I wouldn't be surprised if he echoed or even inspired ideas such as these. In that you made the incrimination, can you tell me where Asimov made this word for word account?
Have you read Dawkin's last book? if so, you'll know my statement rephrases his ideas closely. However, I would not misrepresent another's exact words as my own. But I will graciously acknowledge and credit Dawkin's exact words and I will proudly paraphrase his ideas to spread his important message.
"Actually it was Isaac Asimov who made your statement"
Are you suggesting I plagiarized Asimov? If not, I misunderstood and apologize.
Otherwise, I've never read Asimov. But I wouldn't be surprised if he echoed or even inspired ideas such as these. In that you made the incrimination, can you tell me where Asimov made this word for word account?
Have you read Dawkin's last book? if so, you'll know my statement rephrases his ideas closely. However, I would not misrepresent another's exact words as my own. But I will graciously acknowledge and credit Dawkin's exact words and I will proudly paraphrase his ideas to spread his important message.
05/20/07 @ 02:20
Comment from:
evilatheistconquerer [Member]
Tuen,
"But I wouldn't be surprised if he echoed or even inspired ideas such as these."
(Just so you know, Asimov couldn't have echoed Dawkins' ideas to begin with. He died in 1992, waaay before Dawkins published "The God Delusion" or the article in which a quote similar to your own appeared.)
"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
Isaac Asimov-Free Inquiry (Spring 1982)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic."
Richard Dawkins-The Nullifidian (Dec 94)
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml
I think phreedm was just trying to show off that he actually read a couple of quotes from an atheist, or rather that he didn't read any quotes but knew a name. I'd just ignore it. Also, your quote is closer to Dawkins' quote than Asimov's, so there's no issue of plagiarism, especially when paraphrasing.
"But I wouldn't be surprised if he echoed or even inspired ideas such as these."
(Just so you know, Asimov couldn't have echoed Dawkins' ideas to begin with. He died in 1992, waaay before Dawkins published "The God Delusion" or the article in which a quote similar to your own appeared.)
"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
Isaac Asimov-Free Inquiry (Spring 1982)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic."
Richard Dawkins-The Nullifidian (Dec 94)
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml
I think phreedm was just trying to show off that he actually read a couple of quotes from an atheist, or rather that he didn't read any quotes but knew a name. I'd just ignore it. Also, your quote is closer to Dawkins' quote than Asimov's, so there's no issue of plagiarism, especially when paraphrasing.
05/20/07 @ 04:18
Comment from:
atomictesting [Member]
What frustrates you the most about the religious in America?
That they haven't become rational, intelligent atheists yet.
05/20/07 @ 04:49
Comment from:
phreedm [Member]
KA...you really should pay closer attention to my posts...
Comment from: Tuen [Member]
Asimov was one of the best SciFi writers in his day...if you have time, try reading his Foundation trilogy. It's right up there with the trilogy penned by CS Lewis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundation_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Trilogy
Comment from: Tuen [Member]
Otherwise, I've never read Asimov.
Asimov was one of the best SciFi writers in his day...if you have time, try reading his Foundation trilogy. It's right up there with the trilogy penned by CS Lewis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundation_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Trilogy
05/20/07 @ 07:27
Comment from:
imaskeptic [Member]
x-tians say they believe in god....atheists say we don't believe it.....it is not arrogance to assume the null hypothesis...but i know I am arrogant because i can't stomach superstitious, irrational people any more than i can tolerate a barking dog
05/20/07 @ 07:53
Comment from:
cry4turtles [Member]
"So who's your master...? Yourself?"
The only master here is the masterbater. I handle everything else.
The only master here is the masterbater. I handle everything else.
05/20/07 @ 08:06
Comment from:
Mattney [Member]
I would have to say their complete lack of understanding of atheism. I can't count how many times I've heard "Wow, your life must be empty and meaningless." In reality, I see it as just the opposite. This life is all I get, so I enjoy it so much more. And as far as wonder and awe, what's more amazing, that everything you see evolved from a simple single cell to the staggering complexity all around us, or some omnipotent guy snapped his fingers and made it all? Ever since I've allowed myself to embrace my natural atheism, my wonder at the world around me has actually multiplied.
05/20/07 @ 08:58
Comment from:
Mattney [Member]
phreedm,
You seem confused by the "empirical evidence" argument. Maybe I can help, as I've heard this argument many times before.
When we say that our atheism is based on evidence, what we mean is that there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever of a god or gods. Or, if you like, there is equal evidence for all gods. What I mean by that is that any "evidence" that can be brought forth for the existence of god can be equally attributed to Zeus, Marduk, or the Green Lantern.
Following evidentiary guidelines, if there is zero evidence, it is unreasonable to believe. You have your faith, and that's great, I respect it, I really do. But we don't require evidence to prove nonexistence of gods any more than we need proof of nonexistence of Russell's Teapot. As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone tells me that there is an omnipotent being who actually watches me and cares what I do, the burden of proof is on them.
You seem confused by the "empirical evidence" argument. Maybe I can help, as I've heard this argument many times before.
When we say that our atheism is based on evidence, what we mean is that there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever of a god or gods. Or, if you like, there is equal evidence for all gods. What I mean by that is that any "evidence" that can be brought forth for the existence of god can be equally attributed to Zeus, Marduk, or the Green Lantern.
Following evidentiary guidelines, if there is zero evidence, it is unreasonable to believe. You have your faith, and that's great, I respect it, I really do. But we don't require evidence to prove nonexistence of gods any more than we need proof of nonexistence of Russell's Teapot. As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone tells me that there is an omnipotent being who actually watches me and cares what I do, the burden of proof is on them.
05/20/07 @ 09:21
Comment from:
Ren [Member]
Phreed-hem,
I thought I was quite clear, if somewhat dumbed down for your benefit.
Huh...? "atheism is based upon empirical evidence"...as in "no evidence"...ok....Next
I thought I was quite clear, if somewhat dumbed down for your benefit.
05/20/07 @ 12:04
Comment from:
Deadly Doomham [Member]
phreedm,
Haven't we all told you this before? I'll put it VERY simply for you:
You think there's an all-seeing, all-powerful, invisible superbeing ruling the entire universe.
I don't.
YOU need evidence.
But if you REALLY wanted to be a pest, I suppose I COULD pull out the direct scientific evidence which easily disproves a number of the myths espoused by your superbeing's superbook.
Not that I should need to. Zombies and world-engulfing floods? Please.
Haven't we all told you this before? I'll put it VERY simply for you:
You think there's an all-seeing, all-powerful, invisible superbeing ruling the entire universe.
I don't.
YOU need evidence.
But if you REALLY wanted to be a pest, I suppose I COULD pull out the direct scientific evidence which easily disproves a number of the myths espoused by your superbeing's superbook.
Not that I should need to. Zombies and world-engulfing floods? Please.
05/20/07 @ 12:47
Comment from:
st.lucifer [Member]
phreedm:
Things I listed are done using the so called "faith" in evidence, scientific thought and methods, and "arrogance" of assuming we can know universe.
Now, if you would please, show how faith in God allows you to do all the things you simply copied, and transcend your natural limits. Without calling forth the "faith in science" (of which "faith in evidence" is just a part). In 300 words or less.
Admit it, dude. Your faith is worthless. All you faithheads would have jack-fucking-shit if it wasn't for us scienceheads. And guess what? Science beats God any time of the day.
Honestly, I'd require people to sign wavers every time they visit a hospital, ride an elevator, fly, or even watch TV and use the computer. ALL of those things are based on a rational view of the world, which you so derisively call "faith".
Blah. Lapdog.
Things I listed are done using the so called "faith" in evidence, scientific thought and methods, and "arrogance" of assuming we can know universe.
Now, if you would please, show how faith in God allows you to do all the things you simply copied, and transcend your natural limits. Without calling forth the "faith in science" (of which "faith in evidence" is just a part). In 300 words or less.
Admit it, dude. Your faith is worthless. All you faithheads would have jack-fucking-shit if it wasn't for us scienceheads. And guess what? Science beats God any time of the day.
Honestly, I'd require people to sign wavers every time they visit a hospital, ride an elevator, fly, or even watch TV and use the computer. ALL of those things are based on a rational view of the world, which you so derisively call "faith".
Blah. Lapdog.
05/20/07 @ 13:26
Comment from:
rainbows4dinosaurs [Member]
· http://www.myspace.com/thedrivensnowmusic
Phreedm
Believe and you will believe.
Nothing could be farther from the truth...If you would only take the first step towards Allah, he would in turn take two steps toward you.
Believe and you will believe.
05/20/07 @ 13:34
Comment from:
hominid [Member]
What frustrates me the most about religious in America is I suppose their blatant disregard and disrespect for people who don't elect to share their views much less care to be constantly heckled at by them. My experience with religious phonies all comes down to harp, harp, harp. They've had two thousand years to prove their claims and haven't.
05/20/07 @ 13:34
Comment from:
EricTheAthiest [Member]
There are so many things that frustrate me about religions in america and, especially, in the military. A prayer does not heal a bullet wound, a doctor does. My best friend is pentacostal which in itself is a crazy, absurd religion anyways. We always get in religious debates over the existence of god. Anyways, i'm getting off topic...my major frustration is, well, every aspect about religion and the stranglehold it has on its followers. Why? Why live your life in fear? I hate how this country was "founded" on these biased government/religious hedonistic views. Santa, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy...they were all made up for entertainment purposes for young kids but later on in life they find that these things are fake. Why isn't that true with jesus? The bible is as real as santa. And for me as a military member being hated because I believe in helping my fellow soldier rather than praying for some some god to come and heal his wounds. Screw that noise.
05/20/07 @ 16:02
Comment from:
Tuen [Member]
evilatheistconquerer
Tuen wrote: "But I wouldn't be surprised if he echoed or even inspired ideas such as these."
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative comments. My choice of the word "echoed" did wrongly imply the "repetition" of Dawkins. What I meant was the "reverberation" of previous atheistic ideas.
...a further, albeit cumbersome, point of interest...
In The God Delusion (page 50) Dawkins lists his "spectrum of probabilities" regarding human judgements about the existence of God - an abbreviated list follows:
1)Strong theist: 100% probability of God
2)Very high probability but short of 100%. De fact theist.
3)Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism
4)Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic
5)Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism
6)Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist.
7)Strong atheist. 0% probability of God
Dawkins writes: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden".
I appreciate the quotes you sent. Since Dawkin's 94 account, it seems he has qualified his advocacy of agnosticism.
Where do you place on the spectrum?
Tuen wrote: "But I wouldn't be surprised if he echoed or even inspired ideas such as these."
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative comments. My choice of the word "echoed" did wrongly imply the "repetition" of Dawkins. What I meant was the "reverberation" of previous atheistic ideas.
...a further, albeit cumbersome, point of interest...
In The God Delusion (page 50) Dawkins lists his "spectrum of probabilities" regarding human judgements about the existence of God - an abbreviated list follows:
1)Strong theist: 100% probability of God
2)Very high probability but short of 100%. De fact theist.
3)Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism
4)Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic
5)Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism
6)Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist.
7)Strong atheist. 0% probability of God
Dawkins writes: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden".
I appreciate the quotes you sent. Since Dawkin's 94 account, it seems he has qualified his advocacy of agnosticism.
Where do you place on the spectrum?
05/20/07 @ 16:05
Comment from:
Tuen [Member]
phreedm
Thanks for the book recommendation and links.
Thanks for the book recommendation and links.
05/20/07 @ 16:08
Comment from:
evilatheistconquerer [Member]
Tuen,
I would place in at 7 with being a strong atheist, but add to it that I see no point in feigning belief or worrying about the ifs, ands, or buts. A lot of agnostics take the stance that they don't believe in god, but don't want to become atheists "just in case [they are] wrong and there is a god" so that they aren't sent to hell. I find that viewpoint to be pretty weak myself. I'd rather face the fires than sit with the christians in heaven anyways. And hey, at least you can light a cigarette in Hell.
Also, if you start reading Asimov, don't neglect his Robot series either. "I, Robot" is probably one of my favorite books. I'm also having a debate with myself whether or not Asimov is trying to discuss racism in the series. If anyone wants to give me some input on that one, I'd appreciate it.
I would place in at 7 with being a strong atheist, but add to it that I see no point in feigning belief or worrying about the ifs, ands, or buts. A lot of agnostics take the stance that they don't believe in god, but don't want to become atheists "just in case [they are] wrong and there is a god" so that they aren't sent to hell. I find that viewpoint to be pretty weak myself. I'd rather face the fires than sit with the christians in heaven anyways. And hey, at least you can light a cigarette in Hell.
Also, if you start reading Asimov, don't neglect his Robot series either. "I, Robot" is probably one of my favorite books. I'm also having a debate with myself whether or not Asimov is trying to discuss racism in the series. If anyone wants to give me some input on that one, I'd appreciate it.
05/20/07 @ 16:56
Comment from:
sentinel [Member]
There was an interesting article in today's Washington Post concerning mental categorization, which may offer some insight into how the religious can believe such absurd notions in the face of logical arguments and evidence to the contrary. One of the most frustrating things about the religious for me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051900316.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051900316.html
05/20/07 @ 17:13
Comment from:
Charlie [Member]
There are two things that
frustrate me about religion....
its acceptance.....and phreedumbass
;)
frustrate me about religion....
its acceptance.....and phreedumbass
;)
05/20/07 @ 17:17
Comment from:
Ren [Member]
Tuen,
Thanks for the "spectrum of probabilities" list. I would have to place myself in the 6 category. Although I may be short of zero on the probability scale, I am several places to the right of the decimal point.
Still, I figure that until I look under every rock in the universe, I cannot definitively say there is NO GOD! To do so would require faith, and that's just not my schtik.
Thanks for the "spectrum of probabilities" list. I would have to place myself in the 6 category. Although I may be short of zero on the probability scale, I am several places to the right of the decimal point.
Still, I figure that until I look under every rock in the universe, I cannot definitively say there is NO GOD! To do so would require faith, and that's just not my schtik.
05/20/07 @ 18:51
Comment from:
CAB4reason [Member]
7, definitely a 7.
05/20/07 @ 20:31
Comment from:
HeatheNZ [Member]
· http://www.heathenz.bravehost.com
As attractive as a seven is, it's not a defensible position. I'm with Dawkins; a six leaning toward a seven.
In my opinion, being a seven shows an excess of passion over reason.
In my opinion, being a seven shows an excess of passion over reason.
05/20/07 @ 20:43
Comment from:
Reed Braden [Member]
· http://unorthodoxatheism.blogspot.com/
Another frustrating thing about religious people... naturally gay religious people force themselves into straight relationships, denying gay people any hope or chance at a relationship... and those who are openly gay and Christian often won't date Atheists because of the stigma that comes with it.
Personal Experience #244258b
Personal Experience #244258b
05/20/07 @ 20:49
Comment from:
Mattney [Member]
Definitely a six. Seven is an indefensible position. As sure as I am, I'm not 100% sure and never will be. Nor will anyone. I agree that seven sounds tempting, I mean, I'm pretty sure there is no magic man, but no one can be that sure.
05/20/07 @ 21:27
Comment from:
karen [Member]
Tuen
Since the list is speakimg of the "probability" of god(s) I'll go with a 7.
If any proof was required, I'd have to bump back to 6.9999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999.
Since the list is speakimg of the "probability" of god(s) I'll go with a 7.
If any proof was required, I'd have to bump back to 6.9999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999.
05/20/07 @ 21:40
Comment from:
evilatheistconquerer [Member]
karen,
Thanks for pointing out that it is PROBABILITY not any tangible proof, so it's really what you as an individual feel to be true. If I'm not mistaken, I think that's what Dawkins is getting at too. If you feel there is absolutely no likelihood of a god, then you would be a 7.
Again, I'm a 7.
Thanks for pointing out that it is PROBABILITY not any tangible proof, so it's really what you as an individual feel to be true. If I'm not mistaken, I think that's what Dawkins is getting at too. If you feel there is absolutely no likelihood of a god, then you would be a 7.
Again, I'm a 7.
05/20/07 @ 22:00
Comment from:
CAB4reason [Member]
Karen,
I thought it meant "probability also, that's why for me I said 7.
I thought it meant "probability also, that's why for me I said 7.
05/20/07 @ 22:29
Comment from:
AdamL [Member]
· http://www.myspace.com/bigl021599
What bugs me the most is that to me it seems so reasonable to see the likelyhood of their being a god is so little. When other people fail to see that it bugs the crap out of me. I just can't understand why they don't see it like I do.
05/20/07 @ 23:14
Comment from:
HeatheNZ [Member]
· http://www.heathenz.bravehost.com
7 is the equivalent of 1. It means that you 'know' that there is a god (1) or you 'know' that there are no gods (7). Either case I think is without justification.
Beware - you are setting your self up for a fall.
Beware - you are setting your self up for a fall.
05/20/07 @ 23:15
Comment from:
schnivelbiv [Member]
Gods are there to explain away why things are; however, there is zero chance that a complex diety is the cause of all that is (including itself). Not that anyone on earth has any idea what it is that "cause" means when talking about existance. And without Creation that under their belts gods are simply not interesting even if they do exist. For whatever it even means for something to be a god that is. Hence I'm good with saying I am a 7 because gods answer no philosophical questions, no scientific questions, and there is zero evidence for them.
05/21/07 @ 00:25
Comment from:
rna2dna [Member]
For those that are allowing the possibility of a god. Do you limit the possibility to no more than one? Would you allow for the possibility of an infinite number of gods? Does your placement on the scale change as the number increases? If you are willing to limit the number of gods, why?
Beware - I have many more questions about unseen but equally likely possibilities. Such as, do you know that you are not just a figment of your own imagination?
Beware - I have many more questions about unseen but equally likely possibilities. Such as, do you know that you are not just a figment of your own imagination?
05/21/07 @ 00:43
Comment from:
Tuen [Member]
Dawkins warns of an agnosticism which believes the answer to the God existence/non-existence question is forever beyond human grasp. Unfortunately and subsequently, many presuppose that existence and non-existence have exactly equal probability of being right.
Dawkins: "The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing." - and - "What matters is not that god is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is PROBABLE." (my caps)
Most intellectually engaged people know the evidential probability of God's existence is profoundly low.
As with many of you. I'm partial to Dawkin's viewpoint - 6, but leaning towards 7. A part of me really wants to say 7. But ultimately, and in my view, the agnostic element of my atheism is what best defines our reality.
If we could choose numerically somewhere between 6 and 7, I'd favor (per Karen) 6.99999999 etc. Can anyone suggest an actual title or name for someone in between agnosticism and atheism?
Dawkins: "The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing." - and - "What matters is not that god is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is PROBABLE." (my caps)
Most intellectually engaged people know the evidential probability of God's existence is profoundly low.
As with many of you. I'm partial to Dawkin's viewpoint - 6, but leaning towards 7. A part of me really wants to say 7. But ultimately, and in my view, the agnostic element of my atheism is what best defines our reality.
If we could choose numerically somewhere between 6 and 7, I'd favor (per Karen) 6.99999999 etc. Can anyone suggest an actual title or name for someone in between agnosticism and atheism?
05/21/07 @ 02:36
Comment from:
schnivelbiv [Member]
Tuen: I think that would be a "6".
05/21/07 @ 03:12
Comment from:
What [Member]
I find the all probablity arguments about gods to be meaningless. I read Dawkins book and although I appreciated much of it I think think the discussion of religion (as well as life on other planets) within a probabilistic framework to be an abuse of what probability is. I therefore find no place on the seven point scale to place myself.
05/21/07 @ 03:35
Comment from:
Apple_Christmas [Member]
What:
I like your thinking on this, and I agree with you.
I like your thinking on this, and I agree with you.
05/21/07 @ 06:34
Comment from:
septos [Member]
My frustration with them comes from this. The first commandment "I am the lord thy god,you shall not have any other gods" (Sorry if it's not perfect,It's all I can remember) Then our founding fathers whip up a document giving everyone the right to worship (Or not) any god they want to. The christians claim this is all christocentric behavior. To put it lightly,I find it contradictory.
05/21/07 @ 06:34
Comment from:
HeatheNZ [Member]
· http://www.heathenz.bravehost.com
r2d
For those that are allowing the possibility of a god. Do you limit the possibility to no more than one?I place this 'possibility on a par with that of fairies - so the answer would be no.
Would you allow for the possibility of an infinite number of gods?Never really thought about it. I'm torn about an answer. I think I'd have to answer no because my brain is too puny to handle unbounded numbers effectively, but then again I can't prove a negative infinity to the same extent that I can't prove a single non-existence.
Does your placement on the scale change as the number increases?No. I'm considering the possibility of gods - anything more than zero.
If you are willing to limit the number of gods, why?Because dealing with infinities leads to other imponderable questions. I'd be happy to see some evidence of one god before considering larger numbers. But I'm not taking a seven position regardless of the number of gods in question. And regardless of that number I think the odds are negligible.
05/21/07 @ 07:50
Comment from:
Tarma [Member]
I have many, many frustrations regarding the religious in America. The most frustrating? Among the majority xian sheep, perhaps the thinking that it is okay to rape, murder, steal, whatever---as long as you claim you have found jesus (under the sofa cushions?), all is forgiven. What despicable rubbish!
05/21/07 @ 10:06
Comment from:
HeatheNZ [Member]
· http://www.heathenz.bravehost.com
r2d,
I've been thinking about your question regarding the possibility of an infinite number of gods. To some extent at least it would depend on what attributes one were to ascribe to a god. In particular I am referring to omnipotence. If omnipotence is an essential characteristic, then I think it's illogical to consider more than one god a possibility.
To consider a god without the characteristic of omnipotence seems to make it rather un-godlike.
So I'd like to revise my answer and make the case for not excluding the infinitesimally remote possibility of at most one omnipotent god.
I've been thinking about your question regarding the possibility of an infinite number of gods. To some extent at least it would depend on what attributes one were to ascribe to a god. In particular I am referring to omnipotence. If omnipotence is an essential characteristic, then I think it's illogical to consider more than one god a possibility.
To consider a god without the characteristic of omnipotence seems to make it rather un-godlike.
So I'd like to revise my answer and make the case for not excluding the infinitesimally remote possibility of at most one omnipotent god.
05/21/07 @ 10:07
Comment from:
Jaydave [Member]
I hate that everyone thinks they have the right religion but they rarely look into any other beliefs?
Its just this is what I learned as a kid I dont want to hear anyone else's religious beliefs I am right they are wrong Attitude. It's funny how everyone thinks their belief is the right one? And to go farther I love how christians put every thing else down but most do not even know the truth of their own beliefs ?
Its just this is what I learned as a kid I dont want to hear anyone else's religious beliefs I am right they are wrong Attitude. It's funny how everyone thinks their belief is the right one? And to go farther I love how christians put every thing else down but most do not even know the truth of their own beliefs ?
05/21/07 @ 10:14
Comment from:
rna2dna [Member]
Dawkins statement of probability is using the scientific definition of probability. The audience of this blog ranges anywhere from those who understand that meaning to those who haven't a clue what it means.
I am a 7 with regard to any religion that is or has been practiced. It is absolutely absurd to consider the possibility that an all powerful god would just happen or would just happen to be, before there was anything. Some religions attempt to get around that problem by inventing parents for their god ideas but, that doesn't help at all - for obvious reasons.
I am as sure that there is no supernatural as ANYONE is absolutely sure about ANYTHING. Dawkins has used the expression that the next time he drops an apple he is not absolutely sure it won't fall up, that is a perfectly valid assessment when considering absolute or infinite but, it isn't something that one could live their life by. I think he uses that to demonstrate the absurdity of any known god idea. If we are allowing that level of possibility, it would be equally possible that we really don't exist at all.
Keeping everything in the context of th
I am a 7 with regard to any religion that is or has been practiced. It is absolutely absurd to consider the possibility that an all powerful god would just happen or would just happen to be, before there was anything. Some religions attempt to get around that problem by inventing parents for their god ideas but, that doesn't help at all - for obvious reasons.
I am as sure that there is no supernatural as ANYONE is absolutely sure about ANYTHING. Dawkins has used the expression that the next time he drops an apple he is not absolutely sure it won't fall up, that is a perfectly valid assessment when considering absolute or infinite but, it isn't something that one could live their life by. I think he uses that to demonstrate the absurdity of any known god idea. If we are allowing that level of possibility, it would be equally possible that we really don't exist at all.
Keeping everything in the context of th