It’s an article about yet another Christian who was once an atheist, telling us how awful and unfulfilling life was until he found Jebus. The guy is a fool, and just to spice it up, they threw in…a poll! A poll that needs fixing!
Should creationism have a place in the curriculum?
54% are saying yes
46% are saying no
So fix it already. Go ahead and leave a comment there, too, although the comments so far all seem to be going our way anyway.
Done and done, sir.
I always like these wonky “conversions.”
Someone should remind him that all Christians – and Jews, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists etc. – were once atheists.
Oh gag, he’s willing to accept evolution, but he isn’t sure if it’s by miracle, or by physics.
Here’s a clue, variouis dolts–when it’s by miracle, it’s creationism, plus cause and effect relationships are no longer meaningful to you. IOW, you’re basically a science moron thereafter.
At least he admits that fear of death is one of his motivations, which hardly makes it an intellectually honest conversion.
And gee he must be shallow if he needs “god” to give him some “depth.”
Glen D
http://electricconsciousness.tripod.com
Ignorant old fuddy-duddy? PZ, the guy is only three years older than me! Am I on the threshold of fuddy-duddytude? That’s a depressing thought.
Maybe I’m safe, though. When I listen to Bach, my emotions run more to “Hey, sweeeet!” than “Oh, he’s so much deeper than poor godless lil ol me.”
Already shifted the poll by 2%!
I always wonder about these type of “converts”…
I have similar suspicions, urdsama. It sounded like this was more of a “contortion” than a “conversion”.
What a load of sophomoric dreck.
Tax Religion. Become adults in this Universe.
Tark
43% for creationism,54% to start with.
And that magazine is based in the UK,with mainly UK readers???
Be kind.
That a British biographer believes is evidence of nothing save his desire to believe.
“I could not prop their faith: and yet
Many I had known: with all I sympathized;
And though struck speechless, I did not forget
That what was mourned for, I, too, once had prized.”
Anthony Flew at least had the excuse of senility. This guy just sounds like a wanker. And I can’t help myself: I doubt that he was ever much of an atheist. His thinking is superficial (Bach wrote beautiful music! Bach was religious! Bach was a deeper thinker than I am! I must embrace God!) and his flirtation with atheism might have just been a lazy theist’s excuse for not doing anything about his religious impulse. Now he’s older and he’s got God. Big whoop.
Yo-Yo Christians.
They never go out of style.
“Someone should remind him that all Christians – and Jews, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists etc. – were once atheists.”
No, actually it’s the reverse. Atheism stemmed from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism — basically, any belief system which believes that there is a god.
Conversion to religion seems to occur primarily on an emotional basis where giving it up only happens when rational thought overcomes the emotional. I suspect it is much easier to go religious than to go the other way.
Slightly OT: a fellow reviewer received hate mail for not giving a Christian Easter musical a glowing review. It read a great deal more like the emails PZ and Richard Dakwins get than anything else. We all found it quite amusing…
“Conversion to religion seems to occur primarily on an emotional basis where giving it up only happens when rational thought overcomes the emotional.”
You are forgetting spirituality.
I’m all for teaching about Oometeotl and Omechihuatl.
Look at what he lists as factors that “drove him to atheism” which he still has yet to resolve:
We’re obviously dealing with a very deep thinker here.
Null Hypothesis wrote:
Hmm, I don’t know if I agree with that, but that’s not the point – what I meant was that everyone is born an atheist and then taught to believe in woo of some kind – if they’re unlucky…
Creationism should have a place in the curriculum of humanities and history curricula, but not science.
Should creationism have a place in the curriculum?
Oh great. Another well formed unambiguous poll question.
I forgot to add the observation that the godbots believe atheists hate god. They don’t have the ability to look beyond emotion.
Wilson wasn’t an atheist because he didn’t believe in god(s). He thought all the cool kids weren’t religious and he wanted to be in with the in-crowd.
“what I meant was that everyone is born an atheist and then taught to believe in woo of some kind – if they’re unlucky…”
I wasn’t born an Atheist. That sounds like the Muslims who say all Muslims are born Muslims and can only be falsely drawn away as infidels, or the Christians who say we are all born sinners.
I was born a “person”, well not even that since the substance kind “person” is one of our own invention.
But no one is born a believer, so they were atheists in the most simple sense. The highly sophisticated religions that you mention were not the religions or superstitions that would have been found ten millennia ago. It’s all human invention.
Creationism should have a place in the curriculum of humanities and history curricula, but not science.
Well then I guess the answer would be yes, creationism should have a place in the curriculum. :P
I think he’s confusing atheism with anarchy. He was an anarchist until he stopped breaking things. Then one day, after breaking open some dry wall, he found Jebus.
ah…. the old, “coming to terms with one’s mortality”
or as I call it, “hedging your bet”.
You certainly were an atheist when you were born. It took several years for you to be indoctrinated into the “you believe in Jebus (or Odin, Vishnu, Huitzilopochtli, etc) that Mommy and Daddy believed in.
Null_Hypothesis,
I think you are trying hard to not get what Wowbagger is saying.
Of course every human is born atheist,as in without belief in any particular god,how could it be any other way?The indoctrination into the predominant sect of the region you find yourself living in comes after birth.
Athesism does not require any active doing,which is what your comment that you werent born atheist but a person,seems to imply,its just the absence of something,and therefore there at birth.
“But no one is born a believer, so they were atheists in the most simple sense. ”
But atheists believe that there is no god, which is a belief isn’t it? First they had to be conditioned by their society to believe that there exists a legitimate question, “Is there a god?”
I think Wowbagger means that some one who has never heard of religion is an atheist. Atheism means lack of belief in God, not the belief in the lack of God. Get it right!
This “used to be an atheist” seems to be a fundie stock phrase. Like “Once upon a time” or “In another galaxy far away”.
I doubt that anyone using that phrase was ever an atheist.
Claims that they were once a high priest in Satan’s church are equally suspect. There is no such church.
“Athesism does not require any active doing”
Sure it does. You have to believe that objective reality exists and that the world is rational.
“Reading Northrop Frye and Blake made me realize that their world-view (above all their ability to see the world in mythological terms) is so much more INTERESTING than some of the alternative ways of looking at life.”
Argh.
Why is it assumed that atheists cannot appreciate mythology or metaphor? The “sophisticated” theists are constantly declaring that they find value in metaphors or stories without believing their literal truth; what makes atheists any different?
I must have missed the part of the Athiest Orientation where I was told to relinquish my imagination.
Null_Hypothesis, you were born without a belief in any form of God. This means you were an atheist of sort – albeit one without any ability to reason on the matter.
Atheism is the default state of humanity. We don’t know about gods, religion or spirituality until we are taught, typically via cultural immersion.
That said, without a strong inoculation of education and reasoning, it’s not the default state to stay atheist. Even without cultural indoctrination, the pattern-making abilities in the human brain will develop strong superstitions, unless the owner of the brain is trained in how to avoid that.
“This “used to be an atheist” seems to be a fundie stock phrase. ”
I was just recently told at length about a person who “used to be gay” but then found Jesus and was healed of his affliction. Turns out he “used to be gay” when he was under the age of 10. Messed up logic. Anything to make sense of the amazing emotional revelation finding religion must be to some people.
Actually, NH, that is not correct. ‘A-theism’ means lacking a belief in god(s). It does not require the positive assertion that there is/are no god(s). Since children at birth lack a belief in the devine, they are by definition atheists.
Null_Hypothesis, if you’re going to spout off the same tired, stupid bullshit as every other 1st year philosophy student and god-botherer has, you’re wasting your time here.
Killfile for you.
“Atheism means lack of belief in God”
According to his definition, Atheists believe that there might be a god. We just need to get that straight.
Null, what is spiritualism if not an emotion? Does a spiritual feeling rely on examination of evidence? I don’t believe so.
Ultimately all convictions are based on emotion, but getting to that point should not involve accepting the first emotional response that happens to hit. Creationists, (and many conservatives) tend to rely on that first emotion, call it common sense, or faith and bypass any further consideration, especially when the question is more important than which chocolate bar to choose.
Null, how do you view your relationship with Odin?
Atheism – the prefix a- meaning ‘without’ – is not the belief there is no god, it is the lack of belief in god. While it might seem like semantic quibbling the difference is significant.
Or are you saying you believed in every god ever conceived before you learned of each one and chose not to believe in them?
Take a child raised by ‘your’ kind of atheists – ones who know of and reject the idea of god – who raised their child without ever mentioning or exposing that child to any religious concepts.
Is that child not an atheist?
Null_Hypothesis : “You have to believe that objective reality exists and that the world is rational.”
You need a dictionary. You do not have to believe in objective reality, ever. That’s why it’s objective reality. Atheism does not imply that the world is rational. Atheism means one lacks belief in God or Gods. Nothing more, nothing less.
Robert @ 34 makes a very good point IMO,in that atheism is the default state,and it doesnt require any active doing to be born an atheist,but the brain’s inherent tendency for superstition-creation requires education and rationality later in life to stay an atheist.
I see a total of three comments, one of which is in favour of teaching creationism. Is there any comment purging going on at New Statesman then?
I was struck by this quote: “The Descent of Man, with its talk of savages, its belief that black people are more primitive than white people, and much nonsense besides, is an offence to the intelligence – and is obviously incompatible with Christianity.”
It was completely compatible with Christianity for almost two thousand years. Doesn’t this clown remember the American Civil War? Who does he think fought that, and why?
According to his definition, Atheists believe that there might be a god. We just need to get that straight.
Yes that’s true. Atheists are open minded about the possibility. It’s impossible to definitively prove that god does not exist. But the same can be said for Santa Claus also. Everyone was born without a belief in Santa Claus.
“Null, how do you view your relationship with Odin?”
I hadn’t heard of him before, he seems like and OK guy.
Wowbagger: Someone should remind him that all Christians – and Jews, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists etc. – were once atheists.
Many Jews and Buddhists are still atheists. Don’t know about the Jains.
I only saw two comments.. one yes, one no. My comment hasn’t yet shown up.
You can tell he lives in a calmer society than ours.
Our fundie cultists are full of hate, ignorance, and lies. They want to destroy the USA unless god shows up first and destroys everything.
They can be crazy, violent and occasionally murderous.
While all the above aren’t cool, there is a lot more wrong here than that. They are malevolent and repulsive for a start.
It’s at 71% against now.
Obligatory explanation:
If I say I believe that a god could possibly exist, it’s in the same sense as if I said that I believed a teapot was orbiting Pluto.
Sure, technically it *could* be true… but, given the evidence we have today, the odds of it are so remote that we can generally assume that there is no teapot (or god).
No, NH, that is not correct. If we were to encounter an alien species, that had never once even postulated the concept of magical omnipotent controling beings, they would be athiests, because they lacked a belief in the devine.
Atheists can be people that choose to reject the concept of gods, or they can be those that have never contemplated the concept in the first place. As long as one does not positively believe in gods, one is an atheist.
Current running:
Should creationism have a place in the curriculum?
* 28% are saying yes
* 72% are saying no
Stay on it, though.
“Athesism does not require any active doing”
Sure it does. You have to believe that objective reality exists and that the world is rational.
So if a civilization were discovered somewhere who never had even thought about or heard of the concept of theism, then they shouldn’t be considered atheists?
I have no intention of signing up to leave just a single comment so I’ll post here what I tried to post on the article:
I see beauty in the universe and in human genius like Bach without the need for any supernatural being. Look around and see how amazing this universe we live in is and that science gives us a method for exploring it. Not just evolution but all the rest of biology, physics, chemistry, geology. Solving the mystery is so much more satisfying than just chalking it up to being unknowable because of some diety.
Null Hypothesis wrote:
Utter rubbish. I didn’t believe in a god because my parents didn’t raise me to believe in a god – not because they told me god didn’t exist; they never said that. That other people did believe was simply something other people did for reasons I couldn’t understand.
So, I didn’t believe in god; hence, atheist. I certainly wasn’t thinking about why said god didn’t exist. And I damned well wasn’t thinking about ‘objective reality’.
(Crap, hit “post” too soon.)
That’s what I mean by ‘atheist’. It doesn’t mean an absolute disbelief in any deity; it only means that there is not enough evidence (that is to say, there isn’t any evidence) for the existence of one.
(And, to give you an idea of how long the crap you’re spewing has been floating around, the analogy I presented was originally presented by Bertrand Russell in 1952. Fifty-seven years and theists still won’t listen.)
Null: You are, rather ironically, acting as if God were a null hypothesis. Nice metaphor, but no go.
I’d disagree, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe – it does not necessitate the belief in not.
Ahhh…here Null is trying to become our replacement for the departed Nat Weeks.
“Yes that’s true. Atheists are open minded about the possibility. It’s impossible to definitively prove that god does not exist.”
According to the great wisdom of Wikipedia,
“Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.”
And,
“Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.”
I guess there is much overlap between atheism and agnosticism. Apparently agnostics are atheists in the broadest sense, in other words, weak atheists.
Good point about the Buddhists; I suppose I should have specified and written ‘born without theistic or spiritual beliefs’ – though, with Buddhists that mightn’t apply because of reincarnation. I don’t know much about Buddhism and whether they feel that is something a person may be born inclined towards.
And Jews, well, I guess I mean religious Jews rather than ethnic Jews. I’d use another term to differentiate if there was one; I often use ‘adherents of Judaism’, but that takes longer to type…
Let’s see if I can shift the discussion like Atlas trying to move the Earth.
Ethical question: when PZ says “go change a poll,” should those more technically ingenious among us use scripts to hit it hundreds of times per second until we raise it to an impenetrable 99.9982% against?
No: it might affect server access, which in addition to being possibly against the law, is suppressing freedom of idiocy as is idealized in the Constitution (the ideal not the law being the point here). It also gives web administrators a headache, and they’re so full of caffeine, they can’t cure it with a cup of coffee. They deserve our sympathy and respect.
Yes: calling a voluntary poll a reflection of anything is stupid, so those who can should make it reflect what they want it to. Besides, if you keep the traffic to a non-DOS level, no one will come after you, and it’s worth watching the heads of those less technically informed spin.
If this comment thread site supported it, I would take a poll on this subject, but I guess that’s one joke too many.
This guy must have eaten tons of cereal to collect all the fallacies there are.
I used to want to believe that UFO space ships would carry me away from a boring life until I realized that:
1. Who would feed the cats?
2. My life isn’t boring anyway.
3. What I wish for has nothing to do with what reality is.
This seems to be the Argument from wishful thinking.
Not all atheists are rationalists, unfortunately. There are atheists who believe in all kinds of silly things, but gods just don’t happen to be among their silly beliefs. Atheism is just lack of theistic belief. So yes, we were all born atheists. But seeing the world in naturalistic terms and appreciating it still requires us to learn a bit about the world around us, and to employ critical thinking, which (unlike lack of one particular belief) isn’t something that we’re born with.
Maybe Null_Hypothesis has a different definition of what an atheist is than the rest of the planet does. Null_Hypothesis’s definition would be subjective, and then the rest of the planet would have the objective one.
I wonder if this twerp ever read anything Dawkins wrote or watched him speak? Dawkins (at least, to me) conveys an appreciation of life that I’ve never hear any preacher of gods express. I would be willing to bet Hitch has experienced some “basics of life” that twerpo can’t even imagine.
Just WTF is a “professional atheist”, anyway? Does that make those of us who aren’t well known atheists, amateur atheists? So how do I become a “professional atheist”. Get a degree from No-Woo U.?
The term “professional atheist” implies the probability of, say, “professional christian”. So what might that be and how would one tell the difference between a “professional” christian and one of the laity, given that any clown can legally strap on a vestment and lay claim to revelation?
And so now I’m really confused…was J.C. a “professional christian” or some poor jew who thought TPTB were too full of financial self-interest.
Teh stoopid…it burnz…
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. It’s really a two-dimensional space, with the following corners:
Gnostic Theist: “I *know* my god exists.”
Agnostic Theist: “My god probably exists.”
Agnostic Atheist: “Your god probably doesn’t exist.”
Gnostic Atheist: “I *know* your god doesn’t exist.”
There are very few gnostic atheists, and not a huge number of agnostic theists, but all four can (and do) exist.
I don’t believe we are born atheists, just the opposite actually.
Atheism is usually taken to mean a lack of belief in any god, yet if you consider that the belief in a god is akin to a belief in something bigger, more powerful and in control of our individual environment rather than as a specific entity as usually expressed by theists, we are born with that capability which is expressed before pretty much any other emotion. As a child, before noticing the big bad world, our ‘gods’ are our parents. Theists have just taken this to the adult world by formalizing and naming this entity. They take the imaginary powers we start out assigning to real people and assign them to imaginary person(s).
The closest I can get in believing we are born atheists is that when we are that young we don’t believe in anything beyond what we can immediately experience such as hunger and discomfort. However, among our first real beliefs is a trust in our all powerful parents and that happens rather quickly.
Many atheists do, indeed, admit the possibility that god(s) might exist in the same sense that leprechauns might exist — both are supernatural entities posited to exist, but for which there is not a shred of empirical evidence. Their existence cannot be strictly ruled out because “there are no gods” is not a falsifiable assertion. Rather, gods, like leprechauns, are assumed not to exist until there is empirical evidence that they do. My experience is that this position is pretty common amongst atheists, but you can’t ever say “atheists believe X” because the only thing that all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god(s): all other values, opinions, and beliefs, including the basis for the atheist-defining lack-of-belief, vary from person to person.
The terms are often used together.
As far as I’m concerned, ‘agnostic’ is redundant, because everyone is agnostic; no-one genuinely knows for sure there are (or aren’t) gods of any kind*. Whether they believe in spite of this lack of knowledge, on the other hand, is another question.
*Since, even though it seems unlikely, it’s entirely possible there is a god who can hide its existence; it’s just not the Christian god – at least not according to how they define him.
Atheists have nothing in common except for a lack of belief in gods. No more, no less. Objectivism (I hope that’s different from Ayn Rand’s nonsense) doesn’t enter into the picture. Rationality isn’t required to be an atheist. Just a lack of belief in gods.
As my youngest would say “Yes, Vermin Lord!”, and it is done.
And I’ve no problem teaching Creationism–as a literary section in Literature class. In fact, I was looking at one curriculum that espoused the Bible as Literature, in Literature, and for Literature. Now, as hokey as that title sounds, I had the book physically in my hand and I have to admit, they fooled me with that title.
Meaning, the text really did teach it as it claimed–but in the form of understanding poetry by using Psalms, understanding Shakespeare and relationships by using Songs, understanding mythological creatures by using the various bible stories. It was really quite intriguing a format.
Meh.
SpiritualityTM. Finding easy feel-good answers to difficult questions since 5000 B.C.
For me being “spiritual” means religious, except you may pass your turn at the collection plate and get your “consolation” free. Not that that isn’t progress.
I think the only reasonable cause for an atheist to be afflicted with religion is a brain aneurysm, sudden onset of insanity, or a traumatic blow to the skull. One does not lose their reason so quickly in such a matter of time to mull it over. Then there is the likelihood of being afflicted by too much Facilis, Mabus, and others that have demonstrated their loss of reason.
As a musician and artist I find the assertion that we can only produce work because of religious motivation freaking nauseating. Guess Rimsky-Korsakov just didn’t get it either.
I’d use the word agnostic if it hadn’t been bastardised over the years to mean “unsure” as opposed to “unknowable”. That strong agnosticism is the only way we can treat such knowledge. If it’s beyond the scope of observable measure, then anyone who claims to know is either 1. deluded, 2. lying or 3. has some damn fine evidence to support such a claim. In the absence of any substancial evidence, only 1 and 2 seem viable options – and thus all gods can be explained away as markers of human ignorance. Without any good reason to believe in a god, I don’t. Hence I’m both a strong agnostic and an atheist…
Of course if 3 becomes satisfied, I’ll change my mind.
Rev. BigDumbChimp – two demerits for you. Wishing for the promotion of heathen gods over Moccus.
You’d better straighten up buster or your bacon will curdle.
“However, among our first real beliefs is a trust in our all powerful parents and that happens rather quickly”
But our parents (or legal custodians) are really there. We see them. They exist.
GaryB wrote:
Yeah, but believing in ‘godlike beings’ isn’t the same as believing in gods.
And eventually you grow out of believing your parents to be gods and – especially in your teenage years – start believing they are clueless, embarrassing people who don’t understand you or your generation…
I think the only reasonable cause for an atheist to be afflicted with religion is a brain aneurysm, sudden onset of insanity, or a traumatic blow to the skull.
That’s heddle’s excuse, although he calls it a miracle, direct intervention by his Calvinist God. To his credit, heddle holds that he doesn’t have a way of telling whether it was an actual miracle, or a brain aneurysm, insanity, etc., but the obvious observation is that those possibilities don’t appeal to heddle’s Zaphod Beeblebrox scaled ego.
I made a post there, though it must be approved before it is posted:
While Darwin may have held views that are now considered racist, his views on slavery, expressed at the very end of Voyage of the Beagle, indicate that he held progressive views for his time. He was disgusted by the fact that people who considered themselves Christians would own, abuse, and torture slaves. Reading the Old Testament, I can see no reason to think that racism is incompatible with Christianity, when the god of that religion is himself so intolerant.
I have linked below to an online version of that book, and the passage of which I speak is at the very end.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/vbgle11.txt
and
Right: you can be an atheist for any reason, including irrational ones, or for no reason at all. That said, I think atheism is a prerequisite for rationality, so, while not all atheists are rationalists, all rationalists are atheists. This is one little area where, I think, Dawkins errs somewhat in placing so much emphasis on atheism, rather than primarily on rationality with atheism as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for it.
>>”SpiritualityTM. Finding easy feel-good answers to >>difficult questions since 5000 B.C. For me being >>”spiritual” means religious”
In other words, you have to give up spirituality to be atheist.
and,
>>”I think the only reasonable cause for an atheist to be >>afflicted with religion is a brain aneurysm, sudden onset >>of insanity, or a traumatic blow to the skull.”
Exhibits A and B of “Why Atheism is Not a Flourishing Belief System in the World”
Ken Cope wrote:
And heddle doesn’t have the excuse of having two heads’ worth of brains, either – as far as I know…
Null Hypothesis #32:
No, you just have to fail to believe in any god or gods of any kind. The reverse of what you’re saying is actually what is the case – NOT being an atheist requires an ‘active doing’, if not by the religious person themselves, then by the people who indoctrinated them.
#38:
Whose definition, exactly? The only people who have given a definition here of atheism have all agreed on the same one – a lack of belief in god or gods. Certainly, the person who you seem to mean, Wowbagger, gives that, and gives no hint of claiming that ‘atheists believe that there might be a god’.
Efogoto #45:
I was struck by it for another reason – it shows he hasn’t read The Descent of Man. In there, Darwin actually goes to some lengths to make the point that the people he referred to as ‘savages’ can be considered ‘savages’ or ‘primitives’ in one way only – their technological progress. Indeed, there are a number of passages that quite specifically make the point that it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to give an accurate definition of what a ‘race of man’ actually is, such as this:
As such, it would be kind of difficult to make the case a particular ‘race’ is inherently more primitive, evolutionarily speaking, than any other.
Null Hypothesis #29:
No.
By your logic, you ‘believe’ there’s not really an invisible elephant sitting in your lap. And if you didn’t before, you do now because I have ‘conditioned you to believe there is a question of the form ‘Does an invisible elephant in your lap exist?”
It’s asinine.
I don’t understand people who can’t get the difference between ‘does not believe in the existence of X’ and ‘believes X does not exist’.
#38
Of course. I doubt you’ll find many here who deny that. We believe there might be a god in the same way we believe there might be an invisible elephant in our laps. It might be true, but with no evidence for and plenty of evidence against, we would be morons to consider it a good working hypothesis.
#32:
In the same way we have to ‘believe’ there aren’t invisible elephants in our laps. It’s not an active, positive belief, it’s rather a lack of belief in something that would be silly to believe (that the world isn’t rational).
As another poster said:
@80 Careful Patricia…U can has bacon-Damnation
This ex-atheist guy would make a great troll.
What basic experiences?
1. Believing mythology is real and the earth is 6,000 years old.
2. Rejecting almost all of science and history.
3. Turning back from the 21st century to head on out to the Dark Ages?
4. Discriminating against various majorities and minorities based on a kludgy book written by bronze age nomads.
5. Fighting wars with rival cults that can and did kill tens of millions.
6. Flying planes into skyscrapers secure in the knowledge that god is on your side.
7. Supporting corrupt priests who provide nothing worthwhile for society.
8. The popular one nowadays. You can tell everyone you don’t like that god hates them and they are going to hell. Then you can toss in some death threats for extra credit.
Holbach – Good to see you made it through the registration maze. :)
It isn’t a “belief system” at all
As a musician and artist I find the assertion that we can only produce work because of religious motivation freaking nauseating.
I’m only a musician in an aspiring, music-appreciation sense, but as an artist, I must agree. I produce art, because to try to deny that urge is a form of suicide, and also because I have gotten good enough at it that it is usually what pays the bills, although craft has to suffice all too often. Typical theist bullshit trying to get out in front of anything people value and taking credit for it.
“In other words, you have to give up spirituality to be atheist.”
I think that’s actually pretty safe to say. I used to use spirituality to try and convey the sense of wonder I have for the world, and also at times the sense of terror. I guess what gets called “thaumazein” in philosophy classes. Then, actually after a discussion here, I decided the word “spirituality” was too muddy to be used for that purpose. It conveys all sorts of wishy-washy things and doesn’t have a good meaning that people can agree on. Spirituality can mean alternative healing, spirit mediums, badly botched Hinduism, or wonder at the cosmos. Too vague.
‘TisHimself @ 74
Rationality is not required to be an atheist? We use reason to not believe in things that don’t exist. How the hell rationality is taken out of the equation is incumbent for you to explain more sensibly than that dumb comment of yours.
And then come to realize you were the clueless embarrassing one who didn’t understand much of anything.
Well I guess that depends on the parents.
Not to beat a dead horse but we need to get away from the idea that atheism is limited to not accepting the existence of God, or Odin, or Shiva, or Zeus or any other named entity but look at it as the nonacceptance of an all powerful cause that with human like intelligence, purposefully and intentionally created our universe, without some sort of testable and verifiable evidence.
If we agree to do that, then my argument above becomes more convincing. ;)
No. You have to lack a belief in god(s) to be an atheist, not “give up” (you might never have had any such belief) “spirituality” (whatever that means). You have to give up superstition of all kinds, including “spirituality”, to be rational, but you can be an atheist and believe in leprechauns, homeopathy, and reiki – I would guess that it’s rare for a person to self-identify as an atheist and then claim to believe another steaming crock of nonsensical bollocks, but it’s not excluded by definition of “atheist”.
Damn, you’re correct. We should start an Atheist Church, and spread our Belief System by the sword, all over the world, dammit!!
Can I be “pope”? I’ve always wanted a funny hat.
I absolutely loath this type of religious people. They act as if, by following common sense and not letting our lives be governed by a book of historical fiction, we are missing out. While I recognize that religion can indeed be a good thing, its really not going to add that much to your life- and it will add absolutely nothing but restrictions (meaningless gatherings, etc.) if you are an inspired person.
No, the reason atheism isn’t a ‘flourishing belief system’ is that it isn’t a belief system – just like the old canard that not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
How many times would you like it spelled out to you?
Thanks Smidgy! I’ve read Origins and portions of Beagle, but wasn’t going to claim better knowledge without having read the cited volume.
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any God. It says nothing on the spiritual nature of man, or of spirits. Just that one doesn’t believe in the supernatural. As many others have pointed out here, the modern use of the word atheist which has become synonymous with rationalist – that would require the abandomnent of spiritualist and paranormal thinking. But honestly for that position, the word “skeptic” is far better than atheist.
Patricia,OM @ 92
Yeah, that OpenID was too involved. I suppose now we will lose our sparring foils with this system. Good to have the science part of it, but we need the religionists to mop up the floor with that science.
Rationality may not be necessary to be an atheist but it is certainly needed to change from a theist, which is what this thread is about (in a round about way).
Well put. I like to say atheism is a belief system in the same way that starvation is a meal.
Ugh, Emmit. I was gotten with that one. Yes, most importantly all you need to be an atheist is absence of belief in God.
Holbach:
“We use reason to not believe in things that don’t exist”
Rational people use reason to not believe in things that don’t exist. Irrational people may arrive at lack of belief for other reasons: depression, shock, anger, their own belief system inspired by their bi-polar disorder or meth addiction. The reason then, would not be rational, however lacking belief in Gods it would still be atheistic.
Mandatory re children/atheism: The four-year old finds religion.
My own experience: my earliest thoughts on the subject I believe I can recall with any fidelity were that church was a pretty miserable waste of a perfectly good weekday. Saturdays were good; Sundays might have been in the same category except for that silliness. Long suspected Santa and God were more or less in the same category: you were supposed to say you bought it if you want presents… And I started to think: y’know, I bet everyone thinks this, more or less, but everyone figures they’re not supposed to say so, so I guess no one is gonna, and man, what a drag that is (it was the 70s–that was how six-year olds’ inner monologues sounded, then).
(Got tired of playing along some decade and change later… But that’s another story.)
Poor little old me. I wonder what “basic experiences of life” I so dreadfully lack.
Been there, done that, like most atheists (I don’t exactly know what a “professional” atheist does – is that like a megachurch pastor but with much less moolah ?). Empty words, empty rituals supposed to fill a void I happen not to have.
Sometimes I get both frustration and pity talking to religious people. They’re like four-years-old convinced that their mom will fix all their problems, and that the world can’t be right if it isn’t so.
Pope Newfie, of The Real World Atheist Church of Reason.
… nah… I’m not worthy… a straw cowboy hat will have to suffice, it does look silly in these parts.
I don’t think that’s true. A person might begin to self-identify as an atheist for a variety of reasons. There’s no particular reason to believe that they necessarily became an atheist by reason of rationality. Indeed, I think people becoming atheists for non-rational reasons goes a long way to explaining why you see the “I used to be an atheist” line so much — that some people do, indeed, become atheists almost as an act of faith rather than as the product of rational thinking.
Noadi @ 57
Well put, and there is no need to epand on my part as you have stated it as well as I would, particularly in the mention of the great J S.
I don’t think this man was ever an Atheist. I think he’s just making it up. His misstatement about Darwin demonstrates he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s a sad pathetic person.
Ben @ 70
You missed the militant agnostic:
I don’t know AND YOU DON’T KNOW EITHER!
*grins*
srsly? I just sang a St John Passion in the English translation, and the anti-semitism embodied in the lyrics made me squirm. Religious music is so much nicer in German or Latin, where it’s harder to understand.
I’d have to say that Bach worked as quite a good confirmer of my atheism. From the opening chorus – “Lord and Master” – I see that, err, yes, slavery is a great way to relate god to my sense of ethics. Not.
And then there’s the whole Evilll Jooze thing. We get the fun “crucify him” and “we have no king but Caesar” things. Though we missed out on “his blood be on us and our children”, as that’s in Matthew. But interestingly, there’s lots of exoneration of Pilate. Among other points, Jesus says that Pilate would have no power if it were not given to him from above, and so the ones who delivered him up to Pilate have the greater sin. ORLY? The one who actually orders the crucifying is OK? It’s worse to aid and abet than to actually do the killing? Interesting point of view.
There’s no arguing that the man wrote amazing music. Humans are amazing beings; God just messes things up.
No. “Atheism” just means not believing in god(s). You may believe in any other nonsense you want. It’s very easy. You’ll find a lot of spiritual (and I might even say “religious” because I think they’re very similar) atheists.
No. Every single ex atheist I’ve ever crossed paths with seems to have had a pityfull life, devoid of any purpouse, and filled with drugs and Rock ‘n roll hence at that very moment I know that he has never been an atheist and it’s only a creotard who considers himself devoid of any value in his miserable life unless he’s got a gawd along his side. I’ve meet worse case scenarios of skitzophreina of course, but this one is the most anoying.
blueelm @ 108
Ah, but would that person so traumatised by outside forces still be able to rationalize a non belief in gods if not so affected? I personally do not think so, as an uninjured mind is better to bring to bear the logical reasons for non-belief without the brunt of those debilitation and influencing forces. My personal opinion, as I have no doubt whatsoever of my atheism and how it came to be.
#100: Everyone is pope. It’s a decentralised structure.
Newfie, send the hat out here. It will fit right in with the shit-kicker boots and trucks with balls.
You’re all wrong about what it means to be an atheist. According to the most definitive source on the subject, Ray Comfort, the definition of atheism is much simpler. “An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything.”
Spirituality (n)–Well, see, it’s this thing I have that you don’t. No, I don’t know what it is, exactly. But it’s good to have it. You don’t, and you’re missing so much because you don’t. My having it implies I’m a deep, thoughtful person, and have contemplated the mysteries of life in a suitably reverential frame of mind. Your not having it implies you’re a shallow, ephemeral person–presumably an investment banker, vapid Hollywood starlet, or otherwise shallow thinker who became an atheist because you just Didn’t Think Things Through As Deeply And As Contemplatively As Did I. Note that merely suffering, living, bleeding, battling through several decades on this world cannot make you as spiritual as me if you don’t believe in something suitably spiritual*, mysterious, and poorly-defined as do I. Nor does it matter if you cry hearing the Tom Waits version of Downtown Train and certain old poems from World War I and are quite prepared to tell anyone who doesn’t get why that you’ve really no fucking interest in explaining, but that they’re welcome to sit and listen again if they’d like to try to work it out ’emselves. Doesn’t count. You’re still terribly shallow. Honest. I swear. Deep folk like me, we know. Unless you’re all spiritual like me, you haven’t lived, not really. Being spiritual, it’s like, awesome, y’know? You poor unspiritual loser, you.
*Yes, I know this is circular. But if you were suitably spiritual, you wouldn’t have brought it up.
I think he’s absolutely right. I can’t think of anything more basic (amateur, asinine, backward, brainless, credulous, dense, dimwitted, dull, dumb, fat, feeble, foolish, green, gullible, half-witted, idiotic, ignorant, illiterate, imbecile, inane, inexperienced, inexpert, insensate, mindless, moronic, nitwitted, obtuse, senseless, shallow, silly, simple-minded, slow, soft, soft-headed, stupid, thick, uneducated, unintelligent, witless—any of them work) as the kind of thinking Wilson demonstrates here and suggests those ‘clever’ atheists lack.
I wouldn’t exactly say they’re missing it, though.
“Ah, but would that person so traumatised by outside forces still be able to rationalize a non belief in gods if not so affected?”
I have no idea. I’m not sure that I follow. I don’t think so though. It would depend on the person I guess. For instance the meth head might be able to come to the same conclusion rationally that they came to irrationally sans their habit. But this is too hypothetical for my blood.
lol, as per usual Ray Comfort shows that he’s the next Einstein (sorry Behe)
nice post raven #91
Should creationism have a place in the curriculum?
* 19% are saying yes
* 81% are saying no
Which, by pure coincidence, is not an entirely unreasonable belief.
Sorry, I guess I’ve have fallen victim to the generalization fallacy. I agree that there will be cases where different paths are taken to give up theism, but for the most part in order to give up a strong emotional tie like religion thought will be a big part. I’ve witnessed three changes from religious to atheist and in every case rational thought was the main driver.
I have difficulty imagining another path that will reliably result in an atheistic conviction (not even peer pressure).
Ah yes, the backwards argument. By Occam’s razor, god doesn’t exist until proof positive is shown. I am am still waiting for proof positive. This is failure by Pete Rooke, Silver Fox/Max Verkat, Piltdown Man, Heddle, Roger S, Alan Clarke, Facilis the Fallacious Fool, and now Null Hypothesis. Show the eternally burning bush or shut the fuck up.
I think Benjamin at #70 nailed it:
– There are people who do not believe in god.
– There are people who positively believe that god does not exist.
Both are atheists.
I think the general skepticism that causes many people to fall into the first category also keeps them from going whole hog into the second.
blueelm @ 125
A mind uncluttered whether by nonsense, drugs, or debilitating trauma thinks best. I prefer to happily clutter my mind with reading, Astronomy, Art, Science, and the love of my life, Music. There is no need or room for nonsense which I think will only detract from the enjoyment of those wonderful interests. These interests will only engender further enrichment for other pursuits. We have only this brain for a number of years, so why waste and pollute it with irrational crap.
AN Wilson is such a sad case of all emotion and no thought:
He was an atheist because it he thought it is cool?
He never was an atheist at all!
Why I am an atheist:
I was a big reader early on, starting with the retelling
of Homer and then all those other mythologies.
By the time I got to the bible it was just another collection
of myths to me, fun but no way anymore significant than all the
other stories.
And of course I was much impressed by how nasty god was
right from the start:
He is all powerful, all knowing and puts the snake and
the apple right there with Adam and Eve and then he throws
a tantrum when things go wrong as he knew very well they would.
And don’t start me on Noah’ flood!
What a sadistic pervert.
No, I rather think he doesn’t exist at all.
Why does anyone need to prove that God doesn’t exist? It’s no more doable than showing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist or that there isn’t a teapot orbitting between earth and mars. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – they just happen to look alike. And therein lies the problem, atheism isn’t the absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist. It’s simply that one isn’t compelled to believe that God does. Without reason for belief, you have no belief in God and hence atheism.
Because drugs are fun?
Kel @ 135
Ah yes, the fun part is the beginning, but a dead mind is certainly no fun in the end. Are you totally serious and comitted to that mindset?
I tried to comment at New Statesman, but it silently ate my comment without offering me a chance to log in. Maybe you have to log in first, but they should make it clear that your post will be sent straight to /dev/null if you submit it anyway.
I made essentially the same point as #45, adding the question “What good is an ideology with such a terrible moral track record, especially when compared with the non-ideological control group (atheism)?”
Also… a request for PZ: could you possibly set it so the comment form doesn’t look like you can post without logging in? The last time registration was required, you couldn’t even *try* to post without logging in first.
…or is this perhaps a Clever Heffalump Trap for Creationists? “Aha!” Says the Creationist to himself, “Evil Athiest Myers says he has turned off anonymous posting, but in fact he forgot to do it! I will post my Truthful and Enlightening Arguments here, and nobody can stop me!” Creationist then attempts to post, and is stopped by the deadly TypePad Screen of You Must Log In First! Creationist cleverly logs in, but their comment is lost forever, and Lack Of Belief In Any Particular Set of Imaginary Things is saved from the tedium of having to answer yet more nonsensical arguments! Yay!
(Also also: you absolutely can’t log in to post here unless you have a TypePad account; logging in to TypePad via an OpenID provider doesn’t work, because TypePad has to escort you back here itself… which it won’t do if you go through the torturous process of logging in there with OpenID. Is that all clear? There will be a short quiz next period. Thank you for your attention.)
I punched it from 82% “No” to 83% “No.”
Wowbagger et al: All children are born innocent of God and religion. (Almost all religionists were subjected to child abuse, to become believers in God / religion.) There is a difference between the atheist saying “There is no god.” and the innocent saying “What is a “god”? I’ve never heard of such a thing.”
Yeah, the dead mind is a problem. Which is why I don’t take anything stronger than alcohol.
Holbach #96
Since you ask so nicely, I’ll be happy to explain. I’ll even use short, simple words so you can follow along.
There are people who use woo in place of gods. For instance the “higher being” of Theosophy doesn’t exist. Theosophists don’t believe in a god, which makes them atheists, but their belief system is not rational.
yup. And telling them that they are flawed and need fixin’, is abuse, IMO.
‘Fuddy-duddytude’ is not an age thing, but an attitude thing. I got hints the post-atheist gent was suffering with religious-envy for some time before he finally converted. Could it be he was yearning for the old-time religion of his youth. People do tend to get nostalgic for the ‘good old days’ as they age.
AJ Milne #123
I’ve met that type of spiritualist as well.
Currently,
16% are saying yes
84% are saying no
“TisHimself @ 140
Theosophy is a religion, and whether they believe in gods or woo, it is still spiritual crap and therefore irrational. Can you follow this or can I make it much shorter and simpler for you with one word: bullshit.
As an atheist, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with listening to Bach and thinking about how Bach was (possibly) inspired by a belief in a god. And there’s nothing wrong with envying Bach’s belief in a god. It’s erroneous in my view, but an atheist can easily envy the certainty of a believer.
However, however, however… Why would you jump from envy of someone else’s thinking to adopting that same thinking? For example, I can see the attraction of certainty, but I wouldn’t adopt George W. Bush’s dead-eyed certainty in his own snap judgements. Even if I thought that believing in heaven was a great thing (which I don’t), I still wouldn’t believe in it. ‘Cause it just doesn’t make sense.
Exhibits A and B of “Why Atheism is Not a Flourishing Belief System in the World”
Actually,atheism is flourishing in the world. Very few people were open atheists 100 years ago. Now much of Western Europe and Japan have majorities or pluralities of atheists.
Unless you’re living in Bizarroland (likely) and not flourishing means the exact opposite.
But go ahead and keep living your Bronze Age goatherder delusions, rather than reality.
I don’t know why, but suddenly I’m thinking maybe we should launch a tea pot into solar orbit.
We’re at 85% against, 15% for. I wish the actual North American numbers reflected this. Hell, I wish this wasn’t even a real question any more.
Dinea:
And then, to make the comparison fair, destroy all evidence of having done so?
That’s his POINT: they are irrational atheists (do not believe in gods).
I told them to go right ahead and teach creationism. And while they’re at it, teach ’em that fairies repair shoes and if you don’t leave a saucer of milk out for them, they’ll kill you in your sleep!
I meant to say:
“That’s his POINT: they are irrational atheists (do not believe in gods but are still loons).”
Benjamin Geiger:
And paint it matte black. But really I just think it sounds fun.
Neither of them consciously accept the existence of god, though, and that’s the point. You don’t have to choose not to believe in god in order to be without a belief in god; the correct use of the term ‘atheist’ covers both.
from here: Church of Reality
I consider myself an atheist and an ignostic-ie; ‘Is there a God?’ as a question to me has really become meaningless.
No, everyone is born an atheist. Then you, as a helpless child, are BRAINWASHED into a shared, culturally-reinforced delusion with your fellows. Depending on where you are born, and what family, will almost certain control what faith and the manner of worship you subscribe to during your adult life.
Of course, everyone is also born lacking bladder and bowel control, language, much of gross and all of fine motor control, and a whole host of other knowledge/physical things practical and mundane. But at least learning most of these other skills remain useful through-out your life…
Testing Typepad…crashing poll..broading the horizons…
not bad for a Monday night. Man, I love this site.
As to the poll – “Oh, when will they ever learn?”
And for the record, I believe (although that’s probably a poor choice of a word) that everyone is born an atheist. I cannot buy that there is an inherent belief in the supernatural space guy without one’s parent’s imprinting it upon one’s brain.
My parents certainly tried, and to their great disappointment, failed. My mother, to this day, cannot fathom how she managed to raise such a “heathen.” But, to futher my point, both my kids follow my path. And the amazing thing is that all I tried to teach them was to think and read and question. That was enough for both of them to completely reject religion.
1. No.
2. You can prove a negative.
3. It is not the job of the atheist to put on proof, it is the job of the God botherers to prove the existence of what they claim.
4. Religious claims can be tested.
5. Archaeological and scientific evidence have already proven ever God-myth and creation story to be false. Hell, the God botherers can’t even keep them straight over the centuries and have routinely changed their “immutable, divine revelations” to suit their fancy.
That’s interesting,I actually saw and voted on this poll a day before PZ posted about it. At the time, it said about 3/4 were against the idea. Either I voted early on in poll’s lifetime, or there’s something funny going on for only 46% to be against it when PZ found it.
Meh, it’s been sorted now anyway.
and
you’re confusing skepticism with atheism. while skeptics are rational atheists who don’t believe in any woo, an atheist is simply someone who doesn’t believe in gods. some buddhists are atheists. some new agers are atheists. some people are atheists simply because the god question never occurred to them. and some, especially teens, are “atheists” because their parents’ religion sux and they want to be cool.
It’s possible there is a god; it’s not possible for there to be a god matching the description given via Christianity – if, that is, you can even get them to provide one that isn’t a hodge-podge of nebulous handwaving (god is love etc.); dodging that question is a Christian specialty.
But even the roughest Christian depiction of their god entails irreconcilable contradictions and cannot exist.
Right on, Benjamin Geiger #52. Moreover, we have yet to find something occurring in nature that requires a supernatural explanation, which smashes every god argument except for original-cause deism into smithereens.
Going from you post #70, I would have to consider myself a gnostic atheist because I would reject the notion that a super powerful being should be accorded to the label “god.” It’s like Hitchens always says, would you bow down before the god of the celestial North Korea? No, of course not. I don’t worship the sun or tsunamis, either, though I am helpless against them. Besides, who created the creator? Who watches the watcher? That is clearly a conundrum for any god believer, which they reject out of hand and rightly so, but they fail to see the limitation they are imposing on their so-called “god.” In our minds as in any virtual space, a god is possible; in nature, it is not.
answer in the poll: no.
slightly more complex real world answer: yes!
…for the same reason we should teach lamarkism. and geocentrism. and other ideas that failed to pass scientific muster. and we should teach why these ideas fail, as well. promote critical thinking, etc.
(ps: did you turn off non-typekey posting?)
Please go and learn what proof actually is. Scientists deal in evidence not proof. It doesn’t matter how much evidence there is against God, that’s still not proof of no God, as most reasonable atheists such as myself will tell you.
Back on the topic of the post, it’s interesting that the readers of the New Statesman, a left-wing magazine that at least used to be socialist, think yes to this poll. Maybe it’s not socialist anymore, but I thought most socialists were atheists?
Jeez guys…there’s no god… not the christian one, not the jewish one, not Allah, not Baal, not Jupitor, not Orion, not Ares or Apollo, not Hades or Zeus, not Mars or Ceres…the list goes on and on.
We’re only stuck on the christian god because we’re in the era of right wing loonies…which is I admit is very entertaining when they try to defend themselves…uh…
so…I’ll shut up now because..uh…they really are quite entertaining..
And, for the record…I love bacon. A lot.
Wowbagger, I wouldn’t begin to believe a god was omnipotent if it couldn’t exist while maintaining irreconcilable differences.
I guess that illustrates why the very idea of omnipotence is a nonsensical one, cooked up by people who didn’t spend very much time thinking about what it would mean for a being to possess such a quality.
Omnipotence means God can make 2+2=5. Since 2+2 cannot equal anything other than 4, we must conclude that a being such as God cannot be omniscient, and thus without being omniscient there is no reason to call such a being God. ;)
@164, I agree with you.
I am studying History and Philosophy of Science at uni and, as a consequence, have had to study ID and the evolution of creation “science” and other pseudoscientific ideas that are out of left-field.
I am not actually studying science – and this subject was one I enrolled in at the last minute – but I’ve really appreciated it. It has made me realise how important it is for the average lay person to understand various scientific theories and the arguments against them.
Science and its’ application is so central to the modern world that it makes me wonder why studying its’ history is not a compulsory component of other subjects, like history or literature, from high school on.
By the way, I just found this blog and it looks great! Will be reading it from now on.
Omnipotence means that God could have done anything–anything at all–like making us out of marshmallows living in a hollow world. Why He chose to do what He did do–what we see around us and inside us–makes for some interesting theological musings.
Poll results as of 0:37 pm Pacific Time:
Vote!
Your vote has been counted. If you want to add a comment please do so by filling the form below…
Should creationism have a place in the curriculum?
* 12% are saying yes
* 88% are saying no
I have a cousin named Jim who was an atheist for many years, but recently got “saved” in order to quit drinking and restore his marriage. Based on my own destructive experiences with religion, I’d say that he merely traded one addiction for another. He wasn’t a deep thinker.
My comment at the poll:
When the creationists provide a testable hypothesis, or even provide testable evidence for their belief, there is a Nobel Prize waiting for them. To overthrow a stalwart theory after 200 years would truly rank as a major scientific accomplishment.
Until we get such an hypothesis or evidence, the creationists will be ignored. The only controversy is between their god and evidence.
Maybe true, but you can’t prove the negative “God does not exist.” (Generally speaking.)
And that’s enough. That’s enough for them to stick their tongue out and say, “Nya nya, nya nya nya.” Maybe not good enough for you, but plenty good enough for theism!
And then if you disprove certain specifics about their god, they can say you can’t disprove god in the general case. And then after you leave they can go back to the specifics. And then if you come back, “Nya nya nya can’t disprove god, nya nya nya, ha ha ha ha.” Then when you’re not looking again, it’s back to the specifics. Leave, come back, leave, come back, leave, come back, nya nya nya.
I think we had someone (possibly Silver Fox) say something along those lines: An atheist needs to disprove the existence of God, and since it can’t happen atheism is absurd. Therefore God. QED
Omnipotence means that God could have done anything–anything at all–like making us out of marshmallows living in a hollow world. Why He chose to do what He did do–
what we see around us and inside ususe poor design and methods which are far better explained by non-supernatural means and evolution, which seems unneccessary when you are able to do magic — makes for someinterestingdesperate theologicalmusingsevasions.I think we had someone (possibly Silver Fox) say something along those lines: An atheist needs to disprove the existence of God, and since it can’t happen atheism is absurd. Therefore God. QED
You’ll see that a lot. Atheism is ridiculous because you can’t disprove god. That’s the big “gotcha” you hear all the time. That, and the morality thing. How dare atheists have morality without a god telling them what it should be. How dare they! It’s a guilt trip. “You should be ashamed of yourself for having morals and not giving credit where credit is due. Hare dare you!”
“belief in objective reality” is a contradiction in terms. objective reality is what can be demonstrated by anyone without regard to any belief or thought to be real or true
what else is there?
any thing else is just personal opinion or belief with no more reason to be true than someone said so.
the Emperor has no cloths
I find that argument so annyoing. It does the bait and switch between belief and knowledge, thus making atheism seem absurd and completely shirking the burden of proof.
To which facilis has argued that exact same thing, only replace the word morals with logic. Apparently you can’t say 2+2=4 without recognising that it’s because of God…
But yeah, fully agree. Doesn’t matter that moral behaviour is a mixture of genetics and accumulated social interaction where an internal code of conduct is defined by how best to operate within a certain social hierarchy – if you don’t have a circular answer for the Euthyphro Dilemma (i.e. recognising God as the source AND embodiment of morality), then you’re doing something wrong.
Kel,
That was Silver Fox; I don’t think I recall anyone else being that stupid.
For those who weren’t around for this, I’ll explain: sadly – for him – this backfired (spectacularly), as it rendered his own religion invalid because of his inability to disprove the existence of the other gods posited by humanity over the years.
He tried to argue that there was only ever ‘really’ one god, but this got him laughed out of town, too – since he couldn’t provide any objective justification for why his version of the god concept was more valid than anyone else’s; his inane assertions of his supposed god’s alleged qualities (perfection and being ‘a union of one in unity with itself’ – whatever that means) notwithstanding.
Still better than Alan Clarke’s “Numerology, therefore God” argument.
Theists have hundreds of ‘proofs’ of God. In fact, facilis’ presuppositionalist (or a version of it) is number one. He’s also was found of #58 and #62.
I read someone spouting #150 here a little while ago.
Actually, the sad thing is many of these “proofs” have been presented here in the comments by godbots.
Kel @ 169,
My favourite variant of that is the one Blake Stacey mentioned here a while ago,”Can god make an equilateral triangle whose angles do not add up to 180 degrees?”
You can prove a negative.
Not if it’s an empirical universal negative. Since “God does not exist” = “there is no thing that is God” is a universal negative, the proof would have to be analytical. Do you have one?
,”Can god make an equilateral triangle whose angles do not add up to 180 degrees?”
Easily, by drawing one on a curved surface.
It has made me realise how important it is for the average lay person to understand various scientific theories and the arguments against them.
Great, but neither high school students nor their teachers have what it takes — including time — to do this properly.
Citing William Blake in defence of religion shows that it’s a long time since A.N. Wilson read any Blake. It was Blake who wrote the best one-liner against churches (and states) ever penned:
Prisons are built with stones of law, brothels with bricks of religion
A. N. Wilson’s publically trumpetted conversions are so much a part of his public persona, and presumably his marketability, that I remember predicting (unfortunately just to myself) his next “conversion” ten years or so ago. The only thing I wasn’t sure about was to what he was going to convert next, and recall thinking that, since as an English gentleman, islam was probably out, satanism was all that was left.
That this should be interesting to the impeccably left-wing New Statesman, complete with trashy poll, shows (to my relief!) that conservative media don’t have the monopoly on this sort of rubbish.
Many of the arias from Bach’s sacred works are meltingly lovely (although there are many mediocre ones as well). It used to be argued that the music fitted the words so well that it must have been inspired by Bach’s intense religiosity. Then other scholars demonstrated that in many cases the music had been taken (Bach was a great “borrower” from himself) from his secular works, and a sacred text added.
PS : used to post as “peter”.
Perhaps we should examine the excuses for gawds bullshit as provided in the holy babble.
I’ll be generous here, I won’t even start with Cains wife.
How about an excuse by Adam –
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
I got eight more. Come on christians.
Anyone can if they know the tiniest bit about non-Euclidian geometry — consider a triangle on the surface of a sphere: the angles sum to more than 180°.
Hm,you clever people,we will have to specify then,its the internal angles in a classic euclidian geometry triangle…:-)
*Sigh*
It could be worse, you could’ve missed the fact that someone else made the point before you — c.f. #185, #190 — ;o)
Yeah,but thats just truth machine rambling on Emmet LOL
Yep, we are all BORN ATHEISTS, till someone start to fill our heads with all the crap about gods, angels, saints, and the rest of the garbage.
We are also born amoral, morality is also mostly stuff we learn, and are taught.
And there are no universal codes for either. That’s reality.
The a- in a-theist and a-moral simply means that the concepts are outside the realms of theism and morality. Like any other animal treats it.
Rationality is not required to be an atheist?
This is obvious to any rational person. And since you’re an atheist, you’re even a sufficient example.
We use reason to not believe in things that don’t exist.
Obvious fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. We’re in duh!ville here in regard to irrationality.
Is that why he’s so insistent on the “roasting in hell” thing?
Creationism could be taught, in a similar manner to phlogiston theory: an historical artefact.
That said, I think atheism is a prerequisite for rationality, so, while not all atheists are rationalists, all rationalists are atheists.
I disagree. As Dawkins has pointed out, before Darwin, it was hard to justify atheism, although David Hume made a damned good attempt. Was everyone before Darwin arrived at his theory irrational, including Darwin himself? No, they were missing important information. Rationality is akin to logical validity — you can reach false conclusions if your premises are false. As Dawkins also said, about denying evolution but it also holds for asserting theism, those who do are ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. The wicked are simply lying; the stupid and insane are irrational. Those who are none of those, but only ignorant, are rational but wrong.
Thats bollocks.
Starting with the term “rationalist”,the only rationalist I know is Mr Spock,and even he is struggling at times.
All others are humans who are fallible,emotional,with a brain prone to superstition and irrationality,and rationality is a constant active process to keep on top of the emo soup and logical errors your brain constantly wants to drag you into.
Atheism,i.e.the lack of belief in gods,is not a prerequisite to being rational IMO.
Before discussing the rationality of theism and atheism, isn’t a much tighter definition a good place to start?
To be rational is definitely not an absolute, and the goal posts can be moved to suit most, – just ask any woman or aeromodeler :^)
A friend of a friend is christian, as I was arguing the point about kids being brought up into religion, with the point that ‘if you had been brought up into a household or country with a different religion than the one you have now, you would believe that instead’, they boggled my mind by saying “well, even if I was born to a muslim, I would STILL be a christian by choice”
Urrrrrr………?
Disassociation much?
This argument was brought on by the fact that I did not have my kids confirmed/christened/baptised/whatever. My rationale is and will always be to let them get to an age or a level of understanding what religion is, to choose for themselves which particular wordview they wish without indoctrination by us as adults. And throughout their childhood I refrained from telling them my worldview in case it influenced them. And at 13, they both came to me (at seperate times, but they are twins) and asked me what I believed,and I explained what Atheism is and why I am one.
I can’t abide these so called ‘seen the light’ ex-atheists. One would think that if you had gone the religious route, or at least had an inquiring mind, you had the brain to work it out for yourself. To then go back to religion is just sad, imo.
Thats bollocks.
Starting with the term “rationalist”,the only rationalist I know is Mr Spock,and even he is struggling at times.
If Mr. Spock is the only rationalist and he is an atheist, then it is true that all rationalists are atheists.
In other words, you’ve pretty well demonstrated your contention, by showing how bad people can be at logic.
All others are humans who are fallible,emotional,with a brain prone to superstition and irrationality,and rationality is a constant active process to keep on top of the emo soup and logical errors your brain constantly wants to drag you into.
None of which has any bearing on whether all rationalists are atheists. This time it’s a fallacy of denial of the antecedent.
Atheism,i.e.the lack of belief in gods,is not a prerequisite to being rational IMO.
The claim that you called bollocks was that atheism is a consequence of being rational.
Before discussing the rationality of theism and atheism, isn’t a much tighter definition a good place to start?
I suggest rational = not fallacious and atheist = not a theist = lacking a positive belief in any god.
nothing’s sacred,
Well,it has,in the sense that Im questioning what the definition of a “rationalist” is to start with.
False premises,and all that?
You’re right.
Nothing’s Sacred says:
Not if it’s an empirical universal negative. Since “God does not exist” = “there is no thing that is God” is a universal negative, the proof would have to be analytical. Do you have one?
Well, for some values of “god”… ;^)
Well,it has,in the sense that Im questioning what the definition of a “rationalist” is to start with
No, you clearly were claiming, quite reasonably, that people aren’t rational. But, as I said, that’s a fallacy of denial of the antecedent when addressed to the claim that all rationalists are atheists. i.e., given the claim “if x is a rationalist, then x is an atheist”, it’s a fallacy to attempt to refute it by showing that no x is a rationalist.
I never suggested otherwise, nor suggest that anyone always succeeds in being entirely rational all of the time.
Of course it is: if you aspire to being rational (whether you are always 100% successful or not), you can’t possibly believe in things with no evidenciary basis, like gods, hob-goblins, and leprechauns. Your assertion to the contrary is equivalent to asserting that superstition is compatible with rationality, which, IMO, is plainly absurd. Atheism, as I said before, is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for rationality.
Well, for some values of “god”… ;^)
That would be proof that some gods don’t exist, not that no god exists, unless you accept proof by linguistic fiat. Which points to the problem that “god” is not unambiguously defined.
Shonny@194:
While great chunks of morality is definitely cultural baggage, there is strong evidence of an underlying moral baseline that is pan-cultural and universal. This strongly suggests that at least some morality (or the framework morality is built around) is actually instinctive, and coded into our genetic makeup, much like the gag reflex.
And just like the gag reflex, with practise we can overcome these instinctive morals.
Google for “universal moral grammar”; it’s interesting reading.
You’re right.
Actually I screwed up; “P is a prerequisite of Q” = “Q -> P”, not the other way around.
Time for me to go to sleep; perhaps I’ll be more rational when I awaken.
I’m going to take issue with that.
Without a conceptual framework for how the universe came about, how the Earth was created, or how evolution can create the diversity of life we see, it is not irrational to assume a creator. Paley wasn’t stupid – he just didn’t have the mental toolkits created since that would have allowed him to see alternatives.
A rational mindset will not root out an irrational, emotionally-based belief, particularly not one indoctrinated in early childhood. Everyone has biases that impair their viewpoint, and in many cases they can neither recognise nor correct for their bias. In the deistic and theistic case, their biases include a religious viewpoint. One part of the peer review process in science is an attempt to control for these biases by exposing findings to multiple viewpoints (and multiple biases as well).
Rationality can be exercised within these biases quite happily. Sure, the results will be warped by the bias; that’s inevitable. Even in the most logically driven human, rationality is sitting on top of an emotionally driven brain.
Rather than atheism being a requirement for rationality, I would say that rationality is a requirement for a particular flavour of atheism – the skeptic-driven “strong atheist” that is overrepresented on this blog. But there is no assurance that rationality alone will get you there. And you can certainly be rational without it. I’m not prepared to believe that every theist is irrational.
Of course it is: if you aspire to being rational (whether you are always 100% successful or not), you can’t possibly believe in things with no evidenciary basis, like gods, hob-goblins, and leprechauns.
You’re assuming that one can’t have evidenciary basis for these things, but one can, if one has mistaken beliefs. Consider cold fusion (assuming for the sake of argument that the common wisdom that there is no such process is correct). It wasn’t irrational to think that there was such a thing.
I would say that rationality is a requirement for a particular flavour of atheism – the skeptic-driven “strong atheist” that is overrepresented on this blog.
Holbach is a clear counterexample.
Well yes, that “god” is ambiguous was rather the point (admittedly made with tongue in cheek, and somewhat vaguely too).
If asked if flibetywoobies exist or not most sane people will ask what a flibitywooby is. Not so with god, the hands down winner of the equivocation Olympics 6000 years in a row.
I agree that a god striped down, ambiguous, and amorphous enough cannot be disproved. But since the worshippers of this type of god wouldn’t tend to bother folks on its behalf, I wouldn’t mind them so much.
As to weather or not all gods can be disproven or not, I expect that depends on just what the qualifications for being a god are. Which brings us back to what range of values = god?
While great chunks of morality is definitely cultural baggage, there is strong evidence of an underlying moral baseline that is pan-cultural and universal.
There’s some debate about just how strong it is, but certainly Marc Hauser’s work (e.g., “Moral Minds”) is relevant. And Pinker’s “The Blank Slate”, which strongly rebuts Shonny’s view.
(Why haven’t I gone to sleep yet? Who’s running this damn body, anyway?)
‘Is Morality Innate and Universal?’ is a good article on the subject. I am currently reading the book being discussed there, Moral Minds, and would also recommend it.
Note to self:
Never get into a discussion about logic with
truth machinenothing’s sacred and swedish-american ordained ministers,without reading those books about logical fallacies that have been collecting dust on the shelf the last few months…..Emmet,
Again,that depends entirely on your definition of “rational”.
I still think that you can hold a firm belief that,say,Bayern will beat Barcelona tonight and advance to the semis of the Champions League,which is highly irrational,and be an atheist at the same time.Rationality is not just limited to not-belief in leprechauns.
which is highly irrational,and be an atheist at the same time
You’re doing it again. Emmet said that not all atheists are rational!
Too many irrational people making too many mistakes here, including me. Goodnight folks.
and
I take the point, but given a state of knowledge that it’s reasonable to expect in modern Western society (it may be a little unfair to deem Paley or the Yanomami “irrational”), which doesn’t seem unreasonable on a website, I fail to see how someone who is neither willfully ignorant nor dumb as a rock can simultaneously claim to be a rationalist and a theist. Ken Miller, for example, is clearly rational in most respects, but for some reason is not rational when it comes to religion. But, I doubt he would claim that his religious beliefs are rational, rather, I expect he would appeal to “faith”, belief without evidence, which I regard as irrational. Our own creotrolls are usually one or more of stupid, ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and intellectually lazy, but even they would probably admit to “faith” (a subset of “irrational”), although they’d doubtless reject “irrational” itself. I suppose one could adopt a definition of “rational” that would admit them if one was so inclined; I’m not, particularly.
I take the point, but given a state of knowledge that it’s reasonable to expect in modern Western society
I’m still awake so: The fact is that many people have a much lesser state of knowledge than what you think is “reasonable to expect” — which is, frankly irrelevant. I’m not talking about Ken Miller, and I’m not talking about trolls who have come here and proven their irrationality in numerous ways. The world is much broader than that. There are many people alive today who know far less that is relevant to the issue of the existence of god than William Paley did. Consider that most people alive today are vitalists, and haven’t a clue about the arguments against it. Even most scientists are vitalistic when it comes to consciousness, subscribing to Dennett’s “zombic hunch” and “Cartesian theatre” without even realizing it and without knowing anything about what’s problematic about those views. Of course, you can take anyone with a false empirical belief that contributes to their belief in god and find some irrational step somewhere in their lives that contributed to that belief. But you can do the same with anyone, theist or not — just look at this thread.
Alex Deam (#165)
It’s sometimes said that British socialism (at least in the form of the Labour Party) owes more to Methodism than Marx. Historically speaking, the nonconformist tradition in Britain was often associated with progressive politics, and Christian socialism has always been a significant constituent of the British political left.
However, I suspect that the strong showing for the “yes” vote in this particular poll has more to do with the quasi-postmodernist relativism and “belief in belief” that is still often found in certain sections of the left. They probably think they’re just being fair.
Then again, the fact that the question was vaguely worded doesn’t help. Creationism (along with non-Christian creation myths) would be a perfectly viable topic in a comparative mythology class. And I don’t think anyone would object to creationism being raised for discussion in classes devoted to developing critical thinking skills. So some of the answers may have been intended as “Yes, although not in science classes” (I voted “no” because that was the least worst option available).
Or maybe the poll got crashed by some fundies who aren’t representative of the New Statesman readership.
Anyway, the poll seems to be fixed now.
Lawl.
Oh, and my comment basically says that creationism is a political agenda which has wasted far too much time and money. The time and money spent on fighting about teaching creationism could have been spent doing more productive things, like… I dunno, educating our children.
Noone here would argue that.
You forget however that the creationists do not want to educate our children,they want to indoctrinate them and keep them stupid.
Poll was at over 90% against when I hit it a few minutes ago.
Creationism makes people stupid. Stupid people are less well equipped to compete. Inability to compete causes an evolutionary shift allowing the stupid to die off. But it takes a VERY long time sadly.
Creationism makes people stupid. Stupid people are less well equipped to compete. Inability to compete causes an evolutionary shift allowing the stupid to die off. But it takes a VERY long time sadly.
Compete? Who needs to compete when you simply outbreed? Go watch the first few minutes of Idiocracy… it’s hilarious, true and petrifying at the same time.
Catta #44
I first noticed this article at 13 April 2009 at 15:50 (GMT -5). My comment on New Statesman was made at the same time but didn’t appear for some time. It is date stamped 13 April 2009 at 17:30 (GMT?) so there is a delay of around 7 hours but no purging for content
Stu:
A guy can hope that evolution will correct the creationist ‘problem’ can’t he? Okay, I’ll look for the film and plan to be depressed.
Bah! You need to register, seems like the thing to have people do nowadays ;)
My two cents, in case it doesn’t get posted there, even though here it is preaching to the choir:
If ideas about the workings of the natural world, that were obviously inspired by biblical account and not by the scientific method, are to be part of the science curriculum, then idea’s derived from the faiths of the buddists, native americans, aboriginals, old greeks, romans, egyptians, numerians, babylonians, confusionists, hindus, sihks etc etc etc should get equal attention within that context.
But off course, those aren’t true religions are they? Only the christian account holds the truth. Give me a break……
Keep religion where it belongs, at home, and when in the schools, in philosophy, history or social studies classes.
Ack, new intertoob account,… that means I have one bazzillion accounts,…. Thanks PZ,….
At last count to the poll was 9 to 99 percent, LOL. Feels good to Freep a poll after the freeper’s have been doing it for years,… pointless, but it does feel good to pee on their leg for a change.
91 to 9 against creationism in classroom.
Enjoy.
Creationism makes people stupid. Stupid people are less well equipped to compete. Inability to compete causes an evolutionary shift allowing the stupid to die off. But it takes a VERY long time sadly.
This sort of crackpot evolution isn’t much better than creationism. Intelligence is not necessarily conducive to fitness.
A guy can hope that evolution will correct the creationist ‘problem’ can’t he?
Evolution is non-normative. All of its products are equally “correct”.