1 2 3 4
Zealous followers? How, where? Why should we be anger, bitter, hating and emotional due to the lack of belief in any gods?
Strong beliefs? There IS no belief, there's only the reality.
"Modified" Big Bang, what is that? How has it been modified, and why?
I thought abiogenesis was a scientific field?
Atheism has a political manifesto? Who wrote that? Karl Marx or Ayn Rand? I bet they are the best of pals, those two.
Fiascos? Science is advancing with the help of both the successes and the mistakes. When something is proven wrong, the scientists leave it behind and take another road. They don't stubbornly stick with what can't be proven, saying "it's true because I say it's true".
What does atheism have to do with science anyway?
Addendum: Has anyone seen the movie The Invention of Lying with Richy Gervais? Before there were lies, there were no religions. Har har...
4/24/2010 6:16:12 AM
That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
4/24/2010 6:30:36 AM
I always love how religious people try to discredit other ideologies by calling them religions, it's like they admit being a religion makes your position untrustworthy and ridiculous.
4/24/2010 6:34:27 AM
"we would also be talking about A WORLD WITHOUT ATHEISM, which is also a religion requiring a large measure of faith in the unseen"
We can't see air, but apparatus exists that can analyse it's composition. Anemometers exist to prove that air exists via it's movement, thus measuring it's speed. NO 'faith' required.
A rainbow doesn't actually physically exist, but via a simple natural process involving refraction of sunlight through droplets of water immediately after a rain shower, it can be seen.
Now, you fundies claim that a 'God' exists. Therefore the onus is on you & your ilk to prove such exists. In hard, solid, physical form that can be seen, heard and touched.
But until you can, to the satisfaction of we Atheists, then a 'God' doesn't exist.
We Atheists don't need a superstitious concept called 'Faith', instead we have empirical, scientific facts. Ergo, Atheism is not a religion. QED.
4/24/2010 6:58:42 AM
Once again, calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
4/24/2010 7:00:21 AM
I'll admit that some atheists are full of anger, bitterness, hatred and emotionalism (whatever that is)...just like EVERY group that's large enough. Luckily, they tend to confine themselves to Youtube (which has a worrying number of extremists of all stripes) and leave the majority of moderate atheists alone...
And despite being a atheist, if I had to list a "hero" it would likely be Martin Luther King, Jr...a clergyman.
4/24/2010 7:14:22 AM
There is no such thing as MACROevolution...I repeat...no such thing as MACROevolution.
4/24/2010 7:21:14 AM
Quite the leap of logic you made there. I suppose, Carl, you'll start trying to say that being a pet owner is a religion?
4/24/2010 7:23:16 AM
Even in a world without ORGANIZED religion there would still be people who believed in god/gods/supernatural and people who did not. It's always going to be in the history books, the thought is never going to be wiped out completely. Also, although it is a nice literary device to say "this thing that has nothing to do with venerating a deity is someone's religion", it's extremely disingenuous to use it in this manner and makes you look, well, like a horse's ass.
4/24/2010 7:42:28 AM
@Elia said: "being a pet owner is a religion?"
That depends on whether it is a dog or a cat.
Dog: They feed me, they pet me, they play with me, they let me inside their home - they must be gods!
Cat: They feed me, they pet me, they play with me, they let me inside their home - I must be god!
4/24/2010 7:52:15 AM
"Dog: They feed me, they pet me, they play with me, they let me inside their home - they must be gods!
Cat: They feed me, they pet me, they play with me, they let me inside their home - I must be god!"
'A dog looks up at you. A cat looks down on you. But a pig looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.'
4/24/2010 8:10:28 AM
1) Carl Sagan is hardly zealous, and Dawkins isn't the leader you think he is by any measure. Dawkins has, at best, a faction, and a small and vocal one. The rest of us may agree with him on some points, but we don't trust everything he says and we don't follow him through things. We just think he's got some good ideas.
2) "Emotionalism" Hooray for non-existent words! The reason we're responding so angrily is because Ray Comfort is misrepresenting us and our claims and treating us as idiots when we clearly know better than he does.
3) Nobody believes in evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, or any other scientific claims. Science is completely divorced from belief. People accept these claims. They do not believe them.
4) Oh for the...What manifesto are you even talking about? And yes, you people need to be silenced when it comes to science, because you insist on pretending you understand science when you don't.
5) First off: Ida is only tied to paleontology. It has nothing to do with atheism whatsoever. Atheism lacks organization and doctrines. There are some atheist groups (Raelians) who don't believe in a god but believe that aliens seeded life onto the earth, and therefore reject abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and other scientific claims. Atheists do not have to be scientifically literate; it's just that the smart ones generally are.
Secondly: Ida was not a fiasco. The only people who should be embarrassed about Ida are the sensationalist media vultures who vastly overhyped it. Ida was only thought to be the common ancestor between haplorrhines and strepsirhines, or dry-nosed and wet-nosed primates. It turned out that she was very very close, but no cigar. She was an early wet-nosed primate, no doubt a few species away from being the common ancestor necessary, but not quite close enough.
4/24/2010 8:15:14 AM
I know fuck-all about science except what I read.
I know the Wholly Babble is full of shit because of its contradictions -- including but not limited to different accounts of creation, an "all-loving" gawd who created acts of mass genocide.
It's a book of mythology. Some parts of it are interesting and well-written, while others show a gawd with poor literary skills, and others are just batshit insane, particularly if taken literally and used as a guide to life.
People whose indoctrination leads them to believe the world is a crappy place and wish for an end of everything can't help but be deeply unhappy, because that's not going to happen, at least not in the manner they're expecting. They have no reason to care for the amazing planet we all share, no reason to compromise with those who hold different -- or no -- beliefs, no joy in living what is most likely the only life they're ever going to have.
And I'm perfectly happy to let them have their delusions, but when they try to push them on others or enshrine their prejudices into law, then fuck 'em.
I know the Wholly Babble is not unique in its stupidity, but its adherents are the ones I'm most familiar with. If I lived in Saudi Arabia I'd feel the same way about the Koran ... I just wouldn't be saying so in public.
4/24/2010 8:17:08 AM
Give me my atheist tax concessions or STFU about atheism being a religion.
Oh, and buy yourself a dictionary. Making up your own definitions of words that other people don't share is goose rock chair.
4/24/2010 9:12:49 AM
"Give me my atheist tax concessions or STFU about atheism being a religion."
Exactly. $cientology here in the UK isn't legally recognised as a religion, therefore the Orgs here have to pay tax.
Thus, by carl's logic, we Atheists should be exempt.
4/24/2010 9:36:41 AM
1. A zealous hero does not a deity make.
2. Many a sports team has zealous followers. Sports teams are not religions.
3. Strong beliefs supported by strong evidence do not a religion make. There is strong evidence for evolution, the Big Bang and abiogenesis.
4. No one is suggesting that poop-headed Bible-thumpers be silenced, just removed from science classrooms and political influence.
5. Major fiascos like the stories of Adam & Eve, Noah's ark, talking snakes, heaven, hell and the death of some dude 2000 years ago saving the everlasting souls of those who believe he was their savior.
4/24/2010 9:41:31 AM
Carl Sagan championed science, not atheism...
4/24/2010 9:53:25 AM
So what you're suggesting is that we'd end up with a sort of vacuum since atheism, the non-belief in any deities, wouldn't exist either? Complete and utter logic fail.
4/24/2010 10:06:50 AM
A world without religion OR atheism?
How is that possible?
I guess the concept of atheism as the opposite of religion would be gone, because there would be no religion, but if there was no religion everyone would technically be atheist...
4/24/2010 10:08:57 AM
Yeah, and all of your so-called heroes are burning in hell as we speak. Thnk Carl Saga still enjoys looking at the stars all day? Haha, think again, there are no stars in hell.
4/24/2010 10:48:38 AM
I missed the verse where Jesus directed his followers to be vindictive little cuntrags.
Oh, I forgot, you guys all worship Paul. Sorry. Carry on.
4/24/2010 10:54:06 AM
If I say there is no god, I do not believe in any god. It does not imply in any way that I have substituted any other ism.
What it is with the likes of this Carl that he cannot get it into his head that nothing = nothing, therefor nothing =/= something?
I have a theory that Carl and his kind are so mentally twisted that they cannot conceive of nothing, and therefore hold that not believing in a god means one believes in something else. Sadly, I see this as evidence of total ignorance.
4/24/2010 11:32:13 AM
4/24/2010 11:36:38 AM
we would also be talking about A WORLD WITHOUT ATHEISM, which is also a religion requiring a large measure of faith in the unseen
That would be all well and good except for that fact that it's bullshit and no amount of pissing & moaning will change that.
Nothing. It is simply a descriptor for a person who answers "No" to the question "Do you believe in a god or gods?"
1) Its zealous heroes - R. Dawkins, Carl Sagan, etc.
So does Star Wars, the Olympics, and the Tea Party Movement. Are they also religions?
2) Zealous followers full of anger, bitterness, hatred, and emotionalism (just look at some of the responses here).
So Anger, Bitterness, and Hatred are inherent qualities of religion? That explains so much.
3) Strong beliefs - MACROevolutionism, "modified" Big Bang and other cosmological models, Abiogenesis, and many other completely unscientific and unprovable beliefs.
Yet not a single thing in that list has the slightest thing to do with atheism. In fact the are atheists who don't subscribe to a single one of those beliefs, and none are a prerequisite to disbelieving in a god or gods.
4) A political manifesto with directives such as "They (creationists) must be silenced", Steven J. Gould, Atheist, MACROevolutionist, Harvard Professor of Paleontology
Are you incapable of believing in your "god" without subscribing to the political beliefs of your co-religionists? Does the fact that Steven J Gould holds a certain opinion mean that every single other person who happens to disbelieve in a god must hold that same opinion?
5) Major fiascos from within like "Ida" and many others errors.
And what does any of that have to do with my disbelief in any god or gods?
4/24/2010 11:42:24 AM
We get it, we get it. Atheism is a religion. Now go away.
4/24/2010 11:50:07 AM
1 2 3 4