patrick.net

Marcus just can't handled all the times he lost on this issue, so he's starting a new thread.

The one thing that the Tyson video shows is that some atheists are just so fed up with the stupidity of the religious that they will just willing stop discussing the issues. Well, that and the fact that Wikipedia sucks ass.

The point is that the religious fuck up government so much, especially ours. And that's why we're vocal. Get religion out of government and stop letting Jesus freaks in Texas decide the textbooks for everyone and then we'll be less vocal.

Atheist vocalization is the response to the violation of separation of church and state and the very real, material harm done by the religious by starting wars, suppressing human and civil rights, and generally passing bad or even evil legislation that the rest of us have to put up with.

But Tyson is right in that no atheist would talk about the non-existence of god anymore than the non-existence of pink unicorns making rainbows in your ass if it weren't for the vocalization of the religious and their indoctrination of children and their takeover of government. The day that everybody is an atheist is the day every atheist shuts up. I'm doing my part to make that day come as soon as possible.

The three things that the religious always hate: gays, atheists, and people of other religions. All three groups have always been attacked by the majority religion, and heck, even other minority religions. But there's a message that applies to all three.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/l3Y52kD0G2c

A secularist who argues for separation of church and state and who is critical of the religious right or of radical fundamentalists in general, is a far cry from the fanatical atheist who mocks religious belief and who generalizes that all religious belief and spirituality is bad.

The reason I have Dan on ignore, and I assume its the reason so many do is because of his intellectual dishonesty and his online personality (arrogant ahole).

He has on several occasions argued against all religion and all spiritual belief. He thinks he knows there is no God and thinks he can prove it. I assume he has no job, which is why you might expect him to write a couple thousand words restating these absurd "proofs" here.

Even though he has made these generalizations which he knows are what I react to, he then says its my job to explain why his (recent) emphasis on radical fundamentalists who I apparently support since I won't explicitly denounce what every civilized person would, are not proof of his more generalized claims (which he has temporarily forgotten).

(Note: I have enough experience dealing with children to know that the reaction is what Dan wants).

In a nutshell this is Dan's motif in religious arguments with me:

1) Say crazy provocative things and arrogantly claim he can prove them to be true (he believes it when he is in his manic tantrum), even procede to "prove" this in his mind, and embarrassingly highlighting his entire sordid "rationale" when all he really wants is infinite engagement in argument.

2) Once he has me on the hook (trolling reference) arguing with his idiotic rant, he changes the subject and makes far more rational moderate (basically secular) claims and builds a straw man against me, that my position is in opposition to the newer more reasonable claims.

Dan8267 says

The day that everybody is an atheist is the day every atheist shuts up.

Great. Now he thinks all atheists are just as arrogant as he and that they all have the exact same emotional and psychological baggage that he does.

When you look up arrogant in the dictionary, they have Dan's picture as an illustration.

(Yes I unignored, yet again - so I could see half of comments in the thread)

Dan8267 says

The point is that the religious fuck up government so much, especially ours. And that's why we're vocal. Get religion out of government and stop letting Jesus freaks in Texas decide the textbooks for everyone and then we'll be less vocal.

You say "religion" but you don't mean religion.
Here's what you mean...

"If we can just rewire those Texan Jesus freaks, to think like us, then we can realize our dream of Amerifornia. "

CaptainShuddup says

You say "religion" but you don't mean religion.
Here's what you mean...

"If we can just rewire those Texan Jesus freaks, to think like us, then we can realize our dream of Amerifornia. "

No, I mean Jesus freaks.

I'm not particularly found of California, which is what you are implying. In fact, it's one of my least favorite states, but that's a whole different story.

But the important thing is that Texas should not be deciding what books are read in schools. Massachusetts or Vermont should. And if you have to wonder why...

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

States ranked by education

1. Vermont
2. Massachusetts
25. Texas

In fact, all of the top five are godless, liberal states.

A great example of why confronting religion is important particularly right now.

The important segment is from 05:25 to 08:00 in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/a4ittHF135k

Do you really want that guy to have his finger on the button?

Also, a nice bit about Facebook and insider trading by senators at 09:00.

Oh, and the Onion article that Paul Krugman reference is Voice Of God Revealed To Be Cheney On Intercom.

If Tyson is a scientist his best answer would be, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF of the existence of god.

OK, seriously, who are the eight assholes who thumbs down the following picture? How can you dislike that?

HEY YOU says

If Tyson is a scientist his best answer would be, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF of the existence of god.

I don't need a scientific proof when a mathematical one works.

marcus says

The day that everybody is an atheist is the day every atheist shuts up.

That sounds awfully similar to Islamic expansionism stopping when the entire world worships Allah...

I respect Einstein and Tyson and the countless other agnostics such as Albert Camus, Mark Twain, Kafka, Charles Darwin, Enrico Fermi, David Hilbert, J.M. Keynes, Joseph Lagrange, Alexander Graham Bell, Noam Chomsky and of course Bertrand Russell.

There are so many others.

And then there are all of the countless atheists who are atheists, but don't EVER proselytize, and are not vocally condemning of those who have religious faith.

As I think of it I can not think of a single atheist who does mock the religious who I have the slightest respect for. Well I take it back. I do like a lot of the work of Bill Maher, but this is very much in spite of some of his overzealous comments about religion. (Btw,I agree about how messed up the fundamentalists are - but I also have the common sense to know that arguing against ALL religion is not the cure for fundamentalist extremism - not that I would agree with condemning all religion anyway).

In general I still maintain that Dan and others such as TL, who go out of their way to put down religion are showing unnatractive reflections of their own inner conflicts. It's okay, but it's just not very attractive nor is it worthy of respect (at least from me).

Then again, viva la difference. We can't all be together and balanced in every way. For that matter we all have our issues.

marcus says

In general I still maintain that Dan and others such as TL, who go out of their way to put down religion are showing unnatractive reflections of their own inner conflicts. It's okay, but it's just not very attractive nor is it worthy of respect (at least from me).

Funny, I feel the same way about you for assuming that you know what goes on in my life.

But here's a damn good reason that atheists should be vocal and should hold pride parades like gays do.

That's right, seven states ban atheists from holding office in clear violation of the United States Constitution. And their all dumb states, too. Pennsylvania is basically Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between.

With statues like

The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness.

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

Just to quote a few of the statues.

The religious are violating my Constitutional rights. That's a damn good reason to be vocally opposed to religious superstition and intrusion into the state.

There are no laws banning African Americans from holding public office, but there are still laws banning atheists from holding public office. But I guess a bigot like Marcus is okay with that. Hey Marcus, why don't you just call me a nigger and tell me to go to the back of the bus. The parallels in western history regarding gays, blacks, and atheists are amazing.

And if that wasn't enough, Poverty Higher In States That Ban Atheists From Public Office.

So, you know what, I'm proud to be a flaming atheist. We're here, we're rational, get use to it. Ok, we're still working on the rhyme, but the costumes are coming out fabulous!

uppity nigger

An out of place black person who is out of line and thinks they are as good as or better than the white person they are standing next to.
Rosa Parks was an uppity nigger bitch who thought that she didn't have to move for the white people on the bus.

How is that any different from Marcus accusing me of being an uppity atheist? Bigotry is bigotry, and Marcus is an anti-atheist bigot, a athephobe.

marcus says

In general I still maintain that Dan and others such as TL, who go out of their way to put down religion are showing unnatractive reflections of their own inner conflicts. It's okay, but it's just not very attractive nor is it worthy of respect (at least from me).

I'm evangelical about anti-superstition just like you are evangelical about your experiences.

But spare us the pop psychology.

High levels of atheism are associated with peaceful, prosperous societies with low violence and high levels of education. High levels of religious belief are associated with mass inequity, poverty, high violence, and low levels of education.

It's far more arrogant to believe the universe is centered around humans and that an individual receives messages and assistance from the Boss of the Universe personally.

Dan8267 says

But here's a damn good reason that atheists should be vocal and should hold pride parades like gays do.

You mean besides they take it in the can?

If everyone here doesn't behave, you are going to be placed in
TIME OUT!!

wthrfrk80 says

marcus says

The day that everybody is an atheist is the day every atheist shuts up.

That sounds awfully similar to Islamic expansionism stopping when the entire world worships Allah...

All the big judeo-christian-islamic monotheistic religions believe that world peace will be achieved when god finally helps everyone one to realize the truth of [insert sect here], and the world joins hands and celebrates as one.

I think that Dan is wrong about this. I think that the atheists shut-up when they stop getting treated like shit, and legislation is not used as a tool go get others to conform to a particular religions code. Not when everyone becomes an atheist.

wthrfrk80 says

That sounds awfully similar to Islamic expansionism stopping when the entire world worships Allah...

Yep. Once again, Dan showing us why atheism really is a religion (for some).

leoj707 says

I think that the atheists shut-up when they stop getting treated like shit

I don't know. It is true they are not respected by fundies and the extremely religious types. But then the vocal ones are expressing their
being stuck at an adolescent stage where there is still such an intense internal argument going on about god that they just can't get beyond it.

I say this because I was the same way (long ago). Pointing out the absurdity of many literal beliefs. Let's face it, any moron can come up with arguments against a sky daddy or virgin birth or human sacrifice or whatever. It's too easy. And I'm sorry, I believe that most of the people you hear mocking religion on the internet are morons, or at least as I say "stuck" at an adolescent stage in their spiritual growth.(not to say they are adolescents in every domain of their lives).

Yes of course that perception comes from my perspective and my ego, or arrogance if you prefer.

But the arrogance that I am always referring to in these discussions isn't about what you believe.

The kind of arrogance I have a problem with is someone knowing (for sure) what others should believe, and thinking they have access to the highest spiritual truths and that they need to teach everyone else what these are. The vocal atheists are indeed just like the worst evangelical fundies in this regard.

You have to have greater faith to be an atheist than believe in Jesus Christ. The "rational" choice based upon the evidence would lead one to belief in Jesus Christ.

Being the only ancient text to have foretold countless events, you'd be a fool to dismiss it. The events foretold continue to unfold as we speak.

I mean, what, somehow believing in God is more absurd than believing we are monkeys that came from some magical big bang? There isn't a shred of evidence for "macro-evolution" upon which the shaky foundations of atheism are built.

You talk about how many people "religion" has killed? How about atheism? Between atheist/evolutionists Mao, Lenin, Stalin and others, it's well over 100 million.

Countless archeological evidence continues to come out confirming the ancient events described in the Bible.

It is easier to say that God doesn't exist because most would rather continue to live in their sins than hold account, repent and live the correct lifestyle. Admit it. They have made their own gods in their minds. Then there is cognitive dissonance.

You overlook the brainwashing you underwent since 1st grade regarding evolution (atheism).

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

thunderlips11 says

High levels of atheism are associated with peaceful, prosperous societies with low violence and high levels of education.

Are you referring to Russia and China?

leoj707 says

I think that Dan is wrong about this. I think that the atheists shut-up when they stop getting treated like shit, and legislation is not used as a tool go get others to conform to a particular religions code. Not when everyone becomes an atheist.

Yeah, I concede that point. If all the religious simply performed their stupid rituals as a social club thing and it didn't affect important things like wars, legislation, education, then I'd spend as much time pointing out their follies as I do bitching about astrology, tarot card readers, palm readers, fortune tellers, psychic hotlines, etc., i.e., no time at all.

Of course, if astrology was influencing the presidents decisions, like it did with that whole Nancy Reagan thing, then I'd be concerned about that.

savethepopulation says

You have to have greater faith to be an atheist than believe in Jesus Christ. The "rational" choice based upon the evidence would lead one to belief in Jesus Christ.

Dude, the whole Jesus Christ myth was stolen from other myths, particularly the Egyptian god of Horus. The early Christians plagiarized the hell out of Egyptian myths and totally violated the Analog Millennium Zero Copyright Act passed by emperor Bush in 1 A.D.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tx9WMbCljdo

So how exactly is it rational to believe in a poor repackaging of older myths? Is the rational choice to worship Horus and look to him for moral guidance?

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

Way too many precisely the same stories for the truth to be anything else but that Jesus is a total fucking ripoff of Horus. How much more evidence you could possible ask?

And here's another classic video showing how Christianity is nothing but plagiarized Egyptian myths.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZZ0LmF4IlkU

Carbon dating doesn't lie.

And if that's not enough to nail this coffin...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ljRKhZ81aqY

savethepopulation says

You have to have greater faith to be an atheist than believe in Jesus Christ. The "rational" choice based upon the evidence would lead one to belief in Jesus Christ.

Clearly you do not understand the nature of faith, the scientific process or what constitutes evidence.

Evidence by nature is an objective shared experience that we can all identify, i.e., we all can observe gravity or feel that water is wet. There is a great book that explains the scientific process very well: "Evaluating Scientific Research: Separating Fact from Fiction" I highly suggest it if you are acutally interested in how the scientific method works not the creationist straw man explanation of science.

Faith on the other hand, by nature, is irrational and completely lacking in physical evidence; all the "evidence" comes from internal feelings that can not be "shared" with others.

savethepopulation says

Being the only ancient text to have foretold countless events, you'd be a fool to dismiss it. The events foretold continue to unfold as we speak.

As a result of being in a predominately christian culture I have read rather extensively about claims on biblical prophesy coming true. I have yet to see any line of reasoning "proving" biblical prophecy (FYI, most are circular) that could not also be used to prove non-christian prophesy as well. I remain unconvinced.

savethepopulation says

I mean, what, somehow believing in God is more absurd than believing we are monkeys that came from some magical big bang?

First, you are doing something very common for anti-science christians and that is mixing two entirely separate theories as if they are one.

From a rational point of view, yes believing in god is more absurd because both evolution (more so) and the big bang (less so) have large amounts of scientific evidence supporting them. The idea of god(s) at all let alone the christian god has zero scientific evidence and by definition irrational.

However, with faith -- true faith -- you don't need any scientific evidence to believe god(s) is/are real. This feeling of truth and belief is part of the nature of humanity. If you held down Dan and strapped a god helmet on him even he would begin to know what true faith feels like.

savethepopulation says

There isn't a shred of evidence for "macro-evolution" upon which the shaky foundations of atheism are built.

Wow, I have not heard the whole macro/micro evolution excuse in a long time. It is a great example of the god of the gaps. There are mountains of evidence in support of evolution and accepting "microevolution" is just another example of how religion has "lost ground" to an ever increasing body of scientific knowledge.

Anyway, the point is somewhat moot. Evolution is not a "foundation" of atheism and is not mutually exclusive with religious belief. Many religious people smoothly integrate evolution in with their belief in god(s).

savethepopulation says

You talk about how many people "religion" has killed? How about atheism? Between atheist/evolutionists Mao, Lenin, Stalin and others, it's well over 100 million.

Cudos for not bringing up Hitler.

savethepopulation says

Countless archeological evidence continues to come out confirming the ancient events described in the Bible.

Yes, and using the same criteria for proof of the supernatural, archaeological evidence could also prove that the events and gods in the Odyssey and Iliad are also "real".

savethepopulation says

It is easier to say that God doesn't exist because most would rather continue to live in their sins than hold account, repent and live the correct lifestyle.

Ahhh... yes, here it is. The fundamental misunderstanding of why people don't believe. Not understanding the actual reasons why people don't believe is the biggest stumbling block to actually converting others. If you honestly want others to believe you first need to understand whey they don't believe your particular brand of "correct lifestyle".

... and then there is...

savethepopulation says

cognitive dissonance.

Yes, this is the reason why you search and study, then study and search to justify what you already know through your faith. Right?

Let go... accept it... reason and faith are mutually exclusive. If god(s) could be proven then there would be no need for faith and Dan would be the first one in line to get baptized. You will feel a burden lifted when you realize that you can stop trying to prove god, and that your faith is enough on its own.

leoj707 says

If god(s) could be proven then there would be no need for faith and Dan would be the first one in line to get baptized.

True

leoj707 says

Evidence by nature is an objective shared experience that we can all identify, i.e., we all can observe gravity or feel that water is wet.

What about historical evidence? I can't share the experience of the American Civil War but I believe it occurred nonetheless.

wthrfrk80 says

Are you referring to Russia and China?

Hmmm. Good point. However, there are other historical forces at play in those countries.

In the West, the King and Pope are separate offices.
In the East, the King chooses the Patriarch.
In the Far East, the Emperor is the go-between for Heaven and Earth.

Russia and China also started the 20th Century far more backward than Sweden or France, so we have to give them more time. Russia was probably 200-300 years behind Western Europe in 1920. It's also a multiethnic state of vast expanse. Comparative countries in Europe are far smaller and far more homogenous.

Ditto for China.

I suspect in a century, we'll see China and Russia continuing to catch up. They've already made massive strides just in the last 100 years. Think of it. In 1970, almost all electronics had to be imported to China. In 2010, they produce most of the worlds electronics.

Russia had next to no industry in 1901, next to no railroads, and east of the Urals there are only game tracks. Countries a tiny fraction of Russia's size like Czechoslovakia were industrial superpowers in comparison. 60 years later, the country is well connected, there's power in all the major cities, they churn out steel like nobody's business, and pump oil like mad.

They're beating the world's most industrialized nation that had 100-year head start on their own industrialization by putting the first satellite in space, the first animal in space, the first man into space, the first probe on the moon, the first woman in space, and the first Space Walk. Not to mention the fastest, deepest diving subs in which they still have the lead.

No doubt Russia of 2012 has problems, but Russia of 1901 was hicksville. Outside of Saint Petersburg, you'd have never known you were in the 20th Century, and it wasn't on par technologically (or socially, or artistically) with other European cities. Russians are leaders in all fields, but they still have internal problems from 1000 years of tyranny and underdevelopment to work out.

I think this rule certainly applies to Western Countries, and probably generally. Where it doesn't apply, other forces are at work.

For example, Brunei and Kuwait have tiny populations sitting on massive amounts of oil.

Technically, I'm an agnostic, but for expediency, I say atheist in conversation. For the most part, this is because in my years of experience, saying you are agnostic just opens the door for some religious person to try and convert you. As a generally non-religious person, you have to deal with a lot of people trying to save you at family or extended-family functions.

In non-family affairs, they come to your door. I work from home and have had probably 30 religious nuts come to my door over the last 5 years. WTF is that about? Not once in my life has an atheist knocked on my door to convince me to be an atheist. The asymmetry is high it is ridiculous for religious people to complain about the atheists. If you put up a no-soliciting sign, the religious people somehow think they are not soliciting.

Toe jam says

I think you'll find they write more of the textbooks,

You mean anybody with the last name "Herschel" who writes a textbook? That's like saying anybody with the last name "Ferraro" must be writing from a Catholic point of view.

If you mean that the media and congress are ludicrously pro-Israel, even when it kills US interests elsewhere, then I agree.

YesYNot says

Not once in my life has an atheist knocked on my door to convince me to be an atheist.

*ahem*
http://www.youtube.com/embed/v-bWz74h518

wthrfrk80 says

leoj707 says

Evidence by nature is an objective shared experience that we can all identify, i.e., we all can observe gravity or feel that water is wet.

What about historical evidence? I can't share the experience of the American Civil War but I believe it occurred nonetheless.

Sure you can there is a lot of physical evidence concerning the civil war.

We can know a lot about what happened in history and how people lived through writings and physical evidence that corroborate with each other. The civil war is easy because it was not that long ago and the evidence that it happened is mountainous.

The book of mormon is a good example of when physical evidence exposes a work as having a high probability of being fabricated.

There is no evidence that there was a Jesus, not even a wholly mortal, hippie preacher Jesus. None. The only thing we have is religious writings that come decades after Jesus allegedly lived, and even with 200 years of pious interpolations, their stories don't match, and they contradict not only each other, but other, non-religious historical writings of Josephus and Philo, as well as Roman Records, and archeology.

1500 years of Bias is hard to overcome, but most already agree that Moses, Joshua, etc. were myths. Jesus is the last stumbling block, and will be the hardest because liberal Christians and even agnostics and some atheists (who are steeped in the Western Tradition) will fight hard to keep some kind of historical Jesus alive.

Tradition is a bitch.

For your enjoyment:

And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body"; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood"; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
- First Apology; Justin Martyr, 150 CE

thunderlips11 says

There is no evidence that there was a Jesus, not even a wholly mortal, hippie preacher Jesus. None. The only thing we have is religious writings that come decades after Jesus allegedly lived, and even with 200 years of pious interpolations, their stories don't match, and they contradict not only each other, but other, non-religious historical writings of Josephus and Philo, as well as Roman Records, and archeology.

Well that depends on who you talk to. Who should I believe?

thunderlips11 says

Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
- First Apology; Justin Martyr, 150 CE

Well Justin Martyr seems to be claiming that Mithraism ripped off the ritual from the Christians. Is there a way to tell, in an unbiased manner, who ripped off who?

wthrfrk80 says

Well that depends on who you talk to. Who should I believe?

No one. ;) But I think it's important to consider that Bible Scholars aren't historians nor archeologists, and the vast majority of them were educated as, by, and because of Belief and Belivers.

As of the 90s, there isn't even a consensus on methodology by Bible Scholars, including the more liberal ones. The discipline is completely adrift.

wthrfrk80 says

Well Justin Martyr seems to be claiming that Mithraism ripped off the ritual from the Christians. Is there a way to tell, in an unbiased manner, who ripped off who?

Good question. First mention of Mithras is 300s BC. First temple of Mithra and first written mentions of Mithraic rites is middle last century BC. By the 1st Century AD, Mithraism in it's classic form (communal rites, grades of initiates, etc.) is widespread around the Roman World.

Earliest Christian texts are believed to be no earlier than 50AD. First Christian churches don't appear for another century. The population of Christians around 100AD is believed to be quite small.

Edit: Said "Middle 100s BC", which would imply ~150BC. It actually more like ~50 BC.