patrick.net

leo707 says

Removal of "religion" from a society does not remove the innate desire of some humans to believe in the supernatural.

No, but it is a first step. Plus astrology hasn't influenced national policy since Nancy Reagan.

Dan8267 says

Plus astrology hasn't influenced national policy since Nancy Reagan.

Ah, hahaha good call-back.

Cloud says

How would the atheists activists here remove the religious from society if they were given the power of God and say the US military?

We've seen what other atheists have done. WWPAD do? What would Patrick's atheists do?

Why do I get the feeling this sort of post says a lot more about you and your thinking than that of atheists?

Cloud says

Don't know anything about your feelings other than you use them instead to form an opinion.

I am simply curious as to what an American atheist activist would do if they controlled our government.

On would think from reading Dan's hysterics and spew, that our country is being over run by the Taliban.

This country is hugely tolerant of all religions, including the atheist one.

Cloud, Cloud, Cloud, atheism is not a religion as you should know, and if you don't, then you should really refrain from posting on the topic. And how the hell should anybody know what an atheist would do in power? Presumably that would entirely depend on what their views on economics and social issues was. You know a lot of leaders in Europe are and have been atheist. I haven't noticed prisons set up to house Christians or the like. In fact, I'd say the level of general tolerance is pretty high in Europe, and there's also rather a lot less fundamentalist Christian tub-thumping that goes on compared to the US. Just my opinion of course.

Bigsby wrote: "Cloud, Cloud, Cloud, atheism is not a religion as you should know, and if you don't, then you should really refrain from posting on the topic."

1) Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
2) In an infinite universe, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of someone or something.
3) Therefore atheists take the nonexistence of a deistic entity (and usually the supernatural too) as an article of faith, choosing to believe in "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."(to quote Paul of the New Testament)

This inconvenient truth has really annoyed a lot of atheists, and given rise to such ridiculous flailings as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Do a google search, it's a church!

Aside from this definition, a religion also is defined by prosetylizaton, of which this entire thread is a glaring example of atheists putting their faith on display in the hopes of convincing someone to adopt their belief system and worldview.

Quigley says

1) Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
2) In an infinite universe, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of someone or something.
3) Therefore atheists take the nonexistence of a deistic entity (and usually the supernatural too) as an article of faith, choosing to believe in "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."(to quote Paul of the New Testament)

This inconvenient truth has really annoyed a lot of atheists, and given rise to such ridiculous flailings as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Do a google search, it's a church!

Aside from this definition, a religion also is defined by prosetylizaton, of which this entire thread is a glaring example of atheists putting their faith on display in the hopes of convincing someone to adopt their belief system and worldview.

Oh, dear. If you want to so torture the word religion to make it fit the idea that atheism is a religion, then knock yourself out. Atheism is just a word to describe a lack of belief in God. How can a lack of belief in something be a religion? Is not smoking a habit?

Cloud says

Wow, well said Quig.

Still am asking any atheist on this site to "show me love."

Why?

Cloud says

Why what Bigsby, use your brain, not your feelings.

Follow the bouncing ball:

Why I said "well said Quig" or why do I want an atheist to hand over "love?"

Both

Cloud says

By the way Quig, the great and hugely unknown Dawkins and I have debated via e-mails before.

Although a hermit crab compared to the giants of science, and who will not be remembered, I have to him some respect in his willingness to debate.

You have to laugh.

Cloud says

How would the atheists activists here remove the religious from society if they were given the power of God and say the US military?

By promoting literacy, math/science/history education, and adding logic back as a subject in K-12.

Of course, the crazy-ass religious right can only see military solutions to further their political agenda. That's why they can't imagine that their opposition has other means.

Cloud says

Wow, well said Quig.

Still am asking any atheist on this site to "show me love."

Yep, it's just like romantic rejection. Isn't it.

I don't think anyone could show Cloud love, not even his mother. It's impossible to love someone so loathsome.

Cloud says

the power of God and say the US military

This goes directly to the issue of hate. I am trying to remember which philosopher observed first that the less evidence there is to settle a debate, the more likely it becomes to produce heated argument, hatred, and violence. To borrow a metaphor from physics, less light results in more heat.

As others have written above, in an infinite universe, evidence of nonexistence is rather difficult to find. At the same time, direct evidence to support any particular religion is similarly difficult to find, and besides their many contradictions support Dawkins' summary that a believer disbelieves in all gods but one, while a nonbeliever simply takes that same process one step further. That simple difference shouldn't ordinarily result in hatred, but it does, for multiple reasons. One is the unavailability of evidence.

The OP video adds another likely reason that I had never seen suggested anywhere else, but that is in addition to the more basic reason that people are more likely to resort to hostility and force when evidence and reason fail. The fundamental hypocrisy of "god and guns" is, if you really believe you have an omnipotent god on your side, then a gun would be totally unnecessary. In this regard, America's military budget is a measure of Americans' disbelief that an omnipotent god is really on our side. Alas, pointing out logic in such situations may get you shot, especially by one of our Pakistani "allies" who don't share the American enthusiasm for debate. For much of human history, force was the way to settle debates over any subject beyond the limits of knowledge: build up hatred and organize violence to kill the other side, then the argument is over.

curious2 says

I am trying to remember which philosopher observed first that the less evidence there is to settle a debate, the more likely it becomes to produce heated argument, hatred, and violence.

What does that philosopher say about the election debates where there is plenty of evidence but the right just chooses to ignore facts and make shit up?

Dan8267 says

the right just chooses to ignore facts

"None so blind as those that will not see." That proverb was popularized by a minister, illustrating perhaps unintentionally that people see only what they expected to see, whether it's there or not, and then accuse others of not looking. To the willfully blind, there can never be any facts contrary to what they already believe.

The point is that this is a debate that not only can't be settled, but SHOULDN'T be! As curious2 said, the only way to settle a debate about something that there is no conclusive evidence to justify either side is with force and violence. I hope we can all agree that this method lacks civility, reason, and humanity. Not only that, but the lack of debate makes us all poorer for it. We need people who question as much as we need people who believe. There is wisdom in both sides worldview, but it is lost when represented by fanatics who wish to "end the debate."
Yes, it is impossible to prove the existence of a God or gods that don't hold still long enough for those with the proper certifications to get them to the dissection table. No, this does not equate with proof of nonexistence. A god, by definition, would be as far beyond humanity as we are from a lowly ant. Understanding this deity would be about as much use as an ant trying to comprehend the Internet.
As far as differing faiths, well, have you heard the story about the three blind men and the elephant? It goes like this: they were each allowed to encounter the beast which was new to them. The first felt the trunk and said, "an elephant is like a snake!". The second felt the leg and said, "no, an elephant is clearly like a tree trunk! The third felt its tail and said, "you are both incorrect, an elephant is like a rope!" Each was right, in a small part. Each was also wrong. So it goes with the religions of men as they attempt to describe the nature of the Divine.
All have pieces of the Truth, but all are also wrong, guilty of the arrogance of defining that which transcends human definition.

Quigley says

The point is that this is a debate that not only can't be settled, but SHOULDN'T be! As curious2 said, the only way to settle a debate about something that there is no conclusive evidence to justify either side is with force and violence.

I don't need evidence for a prior issues like the square root of two being irrational. I can use proofs. The existence of an entity that has the properties of the monotheistic god can and has been disproved many times using proofs by contradiction.

Cloud says

Wow, well said Quig.

Still am asking any atheist on this site to "show me love."

We don't burn witches at the stake.
We don't stone women to death.
We don't kill our children because God says so.
We don't believe in slavery.
Please do not show us more of your love.

Cloud, the only one who can show you love is this robot.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/qobhDJ_vEOc

Quigley says

1) Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
2) In an infinite universe, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of someone or something.
3) Therefore atheists take the nonexistence of a deistic entity (and usually the supernatural too) as an article of faith, choosing to believe in "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."(to quote Paul of the New Testament)

... every con artist wants you to believe them without evidence, "In things hoped for, of things unseen".

Tell me where you grew up, and I'll be uncannily accurate as to what your religion is. Religion is mythology, cultural BS. Another truth: The less educated and accomplished you are, the more likely you're religious. This applies both individually and by culture.

Cloud says

Does love exist? You use the word. You use the word hate. Hand it over atheist.

Yes love exists. You just won't find it with a cruel God or anyone who starves millions of babies. Even Satan has more compassion.
I suggest you stop reading fairy tales that say the earth is 6,000 years old.

Raw says

Yes love exists. You just won't find it with a cruel God or anyone who starves millions of babies. Even Satan has more compassion.

"Moses, what do you mean they didn't kill all but the virgin women? They left some boys and old men and old women alive?! Tell them to go back there and kill 'em all, for I am the Prince of Peace and God is Love."

"Elisha, don't worry dude, I'll send a she-bear to kill those kids who made fun of your bald head. After all, YAHWEH is Justice!"

I read it in a book.

Cloud says

Give me the list of just 10 Great Men who are or were atheists, just 10 Thunder. Ought to be easy right?

And we aren't talking about Oxford Dons who push around 21 year old college students. I am talking about Giants like Churchill, or Farrady, Pascal, George Washington....

I'm waiting...keep googling, you're gonna have to google. Good luck.

That's a very silly comment Cloud. Even for you.

You asked him to name 10 great atheists. That is a stupid request. You throw around names of people in history who were believers. So what? Go back just a short time and nearly everyone was a believer or kept quiet about their lack of belief. You could say Newton was a believer or Galileo, and again, I'd say so what. There's a very good chance that if those people had been born in recent times, then they'd be atheists.
Anyway, that has nothing to do with your stupid request to name 10 great atheists. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. There are rather more than 10 great men amongst them even if you are a self-proclaimed luddite. Do you see my point?
And no, I don't think all believers are stupid. Personally, I think they're all deluding themselves, but as for being stupid, well that's surely case by case, is it not?

Cloud says

Raw, I suggest you stop making assumptions.

So let me get this straight:

The smartest people in the world. The artists, the politicians, the scientists, entertainers, those who built great wealth, those who gave us all the good things are just stupid people believing in a fairy tale?

Hmmmm, I think I will hang with Pascal rather than what's his name? Darrell Dawkins?

Are you kidding? Is this a joke?
93% of scientists outright reject the existence of God. The remaining 7% probably want nothing to do with religion.
http://www.humanevents.com/2010/06/17/the-atheistdominated-national-academy-of-sciences/

This is the greatest 5 min video you will ever see.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/fdVucvo-kDU

You will burn in hell for turning on the lights.....

Raw says

This is the greatest 5 min video you will ever see.

Raw says

This is the greatest 5 min video you will ever see.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fdVucvo-kDU)

That is an excellent video, and it answers the earlier request to name 10 great atheists. It also provides another reason why many religious people hate atheists: the Bible tells them to, and their preachers tell them to also. (The OT also tells people to execute anyone who forgets the sabbath, which can be especially problematic because the three Abrahamic faiths have different sabbaths.)

There is an issue of definition though. The video calls Warren Buffett and Bill Gates atheists, but they call themselves agnostic. Either way, they aren't religious.

Still, it offers an excellent response to those who call religion "the" foundation of morality: the two most generous philanthropists in the world are not religious at all. Generosity and morality come from within, not from religion, while religion is too often used to divide people against each other.

curious2 says

This is the greatest 5 min video you will ever see.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fdVucvo-kDU)

That is an excellent video, and it answers the earlier request to name 10 great atheists. It also provides another reason why many religious people hate atheists: the Bible tells them to, and their preachers tell them to also. (The OT also tells people to execute anyone who forgets the sabbath, which can be especially problematic because the three Abrahamic faiths have different sabbaths.)

There is an issue of definition though. The video calls Warren Buffett and Bill Gates atheists, but they call themselves agnostic. Either way, they aren't religious.

Still, it offers an excellent response to those who call religion "the" foundation of morality: the two most generous philanthropists in the world are not religious at all. Generosity and morality come from within, not from religion, while religion is too often used to divide people against each other.

Glad you liked the video. It is one of my favorites.
Atheists/agnostics are some of the most decent, smartest, kindest, intelligent and educated people on the planet. Almost everything has been invented by them.
PS. An agnostic is often described as "atheist without balls"

Raw says

93% of scientists outright reject the existence of God. The remaining 7% probably want nothing to do with religion.

The remaining 7% make bling on selling books and thus cannot say how absurd the notion of a god is.

Raw says

PS. An agnostic is often described as "atheist without balls"

I describe them as closeted atheists. No one is agnostic about unicorns or polytheistic gods like Thor and Odin. Other than social and political pressure, why would anyone be agnostic about monotheistic gods but not polytheistic gods? It's not a weak statement to say "There might be one god, but there sure the hell isn't two.". That's a far stronger statement than saying there are no gods and requires more justification.

If you accept the possibility of a single being creating the universe but can't stomach the possibility of four thousands beings creating the universe, you aren't a real agnostic.

Of course, monotheists who advocate a "god of the gaps" to explain the creation of the universe will absolutely refuse to accept the possibility that there could have been many beings cooperating on the creation of the universe. And why not? Because if there is more than one god, they could disagree. And if they can disagree, then morality is not absolute. And if morality is not absolute, then the individual, selfish humans who claim to speak for the divine couldn't have a monopoly on moral authority and control of other people.

And that is why monotheism replaced polytheism at the time when city-states became nation-states and empires. When you want to be a dictator, including dictators of morality, it helps to have unquestioning centralized authority.

Dan, I was really trying to overlook this, but you keep repeating it. In the Judeo/Christian holy books, Commandment #1 states: "I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods before me."

I'm no lawyer, but that statement by the deity of three major world religions sort of mandates the existence of other gods. Small "g" in case you missed that.
I'm not sure who told you that religious folk only believe in the existence of one god, but you're operating from a faulty assumption. Sorry for destroying your argument. Regards.

Dan8267 says

And that is why monotheism replaced polytheism at the time when city-states became nation-states and empires. When you want to be a dictator, including dictators of morality, it helps to have unquestioning centralized authority.

That is consistent with the history of Constantine and Christianity, but there are caveats. Constantine established Christianity as the dominant religion in the Roman empire, partly because he thought (incorrectly) that having one dominant religion would stabilize the empire and end the civil wars. His decision drove in a sense both the (political) rise and (spiritual) fall of Christianity, because he locked the early Christians in (literally) to agreeing on one specific set of gospel narratives, dismissing apocrypha and accepting the compromises that go along with power. It is also worth noting Rome rose as a republic with freedom of religion, then fell as a Christian empire.

As for monotheism, Christianity isn't really monotheistic. First there is the trinity, then the pantheon of saints with divine powers. Today Italians praying to their patron saints look very similar to ancient Romans praying to their assorted gods.

Also, in the context of dictators and authority, polytheism isn't necessarily a defense. The Vatican threatened to kill Galileo and forced him to renounce his heresy that the earth revolves around the sun, but the ancient Greeks did the same to Aristarchos for the same reason. (In fact, they may have killed him.) The main dynamic is the ego: people want to see themselves as the center of everything, with the sun and stars revolving around them, and they react negatively to anything that threatens their self-importance. This goes back to the OP video and romantic rejection: the woman scorned, having believed that the unbeliever should revolve around her, that they should revolve around each other, feels rejected when he refuses to revolve around her, just as the Vatican reacted to Galileo and the ancient Greeks reacted to Aristarchos for saying the sun didn't revolve around them.

Quigley says

I'm not sure who told you that religious folk only believe in the existence of one god, but you're operating from a faulty assumption. Sorry for destroying your argument. Regards.

Because they do. Just ask them.

Cloud says

By the way Raw, who is Carl Sagan...? What did he do but appear on PBS? No child from the next generation will ever have heard his name.

Presumably ignorance is bliss for you.

Cloud says

For the record an atheist activist uses the word "love" but can not hand it over to me.

You're looking for some man love? Surely there are other forums for that.

Cloud says

Good answer Big. Says more about you than me.

I get a big kick out of liberals who are so open to gays, they use the accusation of homo sexually as an insult.

Wind your neck back in. You're the one who keeps asking for love from people on this forum whilst dishing out insults and posting nonsense. And I didn't say anything about it being an insult, you did. I also don't want to be American. There are too many idiots like you in the country to wish for that.

Cloud says

I think the title to Dan's "Imagine No Religion" should be "Imagine No Radical Religion." Isn't this what he is really saying?

Probably not. I know he wants a world without God, but I wonder, does he want a government that protects those who wish to worship him?

Nah, he quite clearly wants a government that murders anyone who continues to believe in their religion. A serious question Cloud, why do you keep posting your drivel?

Cloud says

Why do you keep replying to it?

Your wrong-headedness needs to be addressed. It's a forum after all. But at least you admitted to it being drivel.

Cloud says

It referring to what you called "it."

Can you be more specific regarding what you define as drivel?

Your posts.