1 2 3 4
Apparently science=atheism and Dawkins=God.
No, just... No.
4/24/2010 1:57:17 AM
1) Its zealous idiots: Pat Robertson, Ken Ham, Joel Osteen, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney
2) Zealous followers full of anger, bitterness, hatred, emotionalism, and no rational thought whatsoever (just look at RR or some variation thereof)
3) Strong beliefs - Intelligent Design, the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, and many other completely unscientific and unprovable beliefs
4) A political manifesto with directives such as "The US is a Christian nation", "Fags burn in hell", and the WBC.
5) Major fiascos from within like the abuse of children at the hands of Catholic Priests.
Right back at ya.
4/24/2010 2:03:29 AM
Typical creationist crap. Just vote WTF and move on.
4/24/2010 2:04:02 AM
I'll ignore all the other crap I've heard before, but how was Ida a "fiasco"?
4/24/2010 2:06:31 AM
To be fair, he has managed to differentiate between various different scientific fields there, rather than just lumping them all together...
Of course, macroevolution is an unneccessary line to draw and he still failed to realise they are backed by evidence, but it is progress of a sort.
4/24/2010 2:19:22 AM
... No. No no no no no. NO. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no God, as well as a belief in facts that we have evidence to back up our science.
4/24/2010 2:33:19 AM
The flaws in those five points notwithstanding, Carl, you have failed to note two things that are essential to what makes a 'religion'; that it is an organised system, and the belief in something supernatural. Even if it is given that atheism relies on belief, it is undeniably a belief in natural causes devoid of any supernatural influence. It is likewise undeniable that atheism has no central organizations, no hierarchies or 'official dogma' are to be found anywhere. If atheism is a belief system, it is an unorganised one and one utterly devoid of the supernatural; it is certainly not a religion by any meaningful standards.
4/24/2010 2:58:55 AM
"Ray, since we're talking about a world without religion, we would also be talking about A WORLD WITHOUT ATHEISM, which is also a religion requiring a large measure of faith in the unseen: "
How can you have both? Either you believe in a deity, your're not sure, or you don't.
1) Its zealous heroes - R. Dawkins, Carl Sagan, etc."
Actually my heroes are Anne Frank and Laura Ingalls Wilder. A Jew and a Christian. It wasn't their beliefs that made me look up to them, it was their courage.
"2) Zealous followers full of anger, bitterness, hatred, and emotionalism (just look at some of the responses here). "
I was most angry, bitter and hatefull when I was a christian. I've been much more happy and at peace with myself since I left the church.
"3) Strong beliefs - MACROevolutionism, "modified" Big Bang and other cosmological models, Abiogenesis, and many other completely unscientific and unprovable beliefs. "
but much more provable than being a part of God's personal Sims 3 game.
"4) A political manifesto with directives such as "They (creationists) must be silenced", Steven J. Gould, Atheist, MACROevolutionist, Harvard Professor of Paleontology "
Shiny, shiny mirror.
"5) Major fiascos from within like "Ida" and many others errors."
What the hell is Ida? And yes there are errors in many scientific theories, nobody and nothing is perfect. But instead of seeing it as non-proof, our side can admit those errors correct, and continue working to make those theories more accurate. Fundies are the ones who insist everything be carved in stone.
4/24/2010 3:08:16 AM
> 5) Major fiascos from within like "Ida" and many others errors.
Over-enthusiastic media reaction counts as "major fiasco" these days?
At least people had a rational scientific explanation for Ida and its role in understanding evolution. I mean, the press may say "OMG missing link found: Major Discovery Destroys Creationism", but the scientists took an appropriately cautious and realistic path in examining the evidence. If the press blows things out of proportion, it's their fault.
How's the Catholic child abuse media reaction being rectified? I mean, it's fairly clear that this is just a similar over-enthusiastic media reaction, blowing relatively small-scale (if, in itself, very much condemnable) problems way out of proportion.
How are you going to fix the root causes? In Ida's case it was "it's not really that remarkable a discovery; we still have a lot of things to be studied, you know". How's the child abuse problem going to be satisfactorily fixed?
4/24/2010 3:10:35 AM
Yeah! That's cool. A world with no belief in deities. Wow! Great! Astonishing concept! And to top it off and make it even better, a world with no unbelief in deities! It's so brilliant that only a major dork ... er, I mean, um, genius could have thought of it. Straw-clutching taken to the stratospheric heights of the utmost vapidity.
4/24/2010 3:13:14 AM
1) Does not make something a religion. Take feminism, for example - doesn't that have plenty of zealous heroes and heroines? Not, however, a religion. Similarly for other civil rights movements and political issues. Hell, pretty much everything can have zealous heroes. I myself am quite zealous regarding the correct use of the apostrophe.
2) See 1.
3) Except that none of the beliefs you mentioned are part of atheism. Someone who does not believe in a god, but who believes, say, that the Earth was designed by the ancient Magratheans in a quest to find the Question to the Ultimate Answer, is STILL AN ATHEIST. The only thing required to be an atheist is a LACK of belief- in gods.
I'll also add, like 1 and 2, that having strong beliefs does not make something a religion. Feminists have a strong belief in gender equality, I have a strong belief that the rules for using the apostrophe should be better taught, etc.
4) Sweetheart, a statement by one person, which you have probably taken out of context, does not a political manifesto make. And do I need to refer you back to points 1, 2 and the second half of 3 again?
5) See 1, 2, 3 and 4. Do you actually know what a religion is? In fact, I think you've pretty much just defined the fandom of Doctor Who as a religion. lets take a look... zealous heroes, definitely; zealous followers, yes, strong beliefs.... well, you should see the ship wars; political manifesto depends on your definition but I did see someone suggesting the Doctor be made the new patron saint of England in a national newspaper yesterday, and there's a major campaign to get a character from Torchwood brought back, complete with a public shrine; fiascos... see the ship wars.
Our Doctor, who art on the TARDIS...
4/24/2010 3:14:53 AM
Bah, another fucking "Atheism is a religion" quote. Alright...
If this world without religion means a world without atheism - then GOOD! A lack of religion explicitly means a lack of the unreligious. I'm an atheist not because, as this poster seems to think, I subscribe to one of many worldviews based entirely on the "apostles" of Dawkins - simply because there's no evidence!
Fuck all religions and let reason prevail.
4/24/2010 3:39:30 AM
This makes no sense. Clearly, Carl doesn't fully understand the definition of the word "religion."
4/24/2010 3:45:09 AM
Atheism, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
4/24/2010 3:50:01 AM
I still don't see any way how Atheism is a religion.
I'll only arrive at the usual conclusion: carl is a fucktard.
4/24/2010 4:18:59 AM
Atheism may require a large amount of faith, but it is not a religion
You think christian followers can't be hateful? Have you ever heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? How about Steven Anderson? Not to mention all the comments of hate many have towards gays, non-believers (just look at what Pat Robertson said about the Haiti earthquake), and liberal Democrats.
4/24/2010 4:42:44 AM
What 'faith' does atheism require, exactly? Faith in what?
(And don't say 'faith in evilution' or 'faith in the big bang' or similar shit. Both could be shown to be wrong, and I still wouldn't think there's a god).
4/24/2010 4:51:46 AM
Jezebel's Evil Sister
1. IF we lived in a world without religion, we'd ALL be atheists (regardless of whether we'd call ourselves that) because all "atheist" means is a person without a belief in gods.
2. Carl is an idiot.
4/24/2010 5:17:04 AM
I'm so sick and tired of this stupid shit.
4/24/2010 5:26:54 AM
@cy: In fact, I think you've pretty much just defined the fandom of Doctor Who as a religion. lets take a look... zealous heroes, definitely; zealous followers, yes, strong beliefs.... well, you should see the ship wars; political manifesto depends on your definition but I did see someone suggesting the Doctor be made the new patron saint of England in a national newspaper yesterday, and there's a major campaign to get a character from Torchwood brought back, complete with a public shrine; fiascos... see the ship wars.
Our Doctor, who art on the TARDIS...
I love you.
4/24/2010 5:27:11 AM
.....None of which are prerequisites for a religion.
4/24/2010 5:51:27 AM
4/24/2010 5:55:09 AM
I didn't realize organic gardening was a religion; thanks for showing me the light. Now I can demand my full civil rights and tax breaks. Messing with my 'victory garden' has now become a hate crime!
4/24/2010 5:56:11 AM
Ultimate example of begging the question - in a world without religion where atheism somehow counts as a religion and thus also wouldn't exist, what, precisely, would remain?
4/24/2010 5:57:26 AM
this is in desperate need of a "WHAARRGARRBLE" pic
4/24/2010 6:03:36 AM
1 2 3 4