Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority

What's this "vision of american society" crap?

they think atheists can't get fat, or take too many drugs, or sit at home and watch 10 hours of television a day?

Admittedly this distinction may be lost on a lot of true believers.

I am an atheist, but my husband's parents "allowed" him to marry me.

Scratch an agnostic, find a theist. They're hedging their bets because they're still afraid of going to hell. I don't see why any atheist would say they're an agnostic. Total wuss move.

i used to work with a guy like that. he belonged to some sort of atheist organization. atheism was his religion.

once you stop believing in god, shouldn't god cease to be a big deal? guess those religious atheists feel really put upon by society's theistic religiosity or something. jerks. they're like people who brag about not having tv.

doubt the people in the survey were basing their distrust of atheists on negative experiences though.

the conversation didn't really go anywhere.

well i'm an atheist and i live in america (although i'm a buddhist which puts me in some sort of strange middle ground) and while i do occasionally feel put upon by christians, i can appreciate that their situation is complex - containing good and not so good qualities, and a lot of inbetween.

i find the superior attitude that a lot of atheists display to be particularly retarded, because while they may not be classic monotheists they still display theistic attitudes - just with different objects of veneration: material things, science, themselves, aggression, etc.

OTM

Exhibit A:

Scratch an agnostic, find a theist. They're hedging their bets because they're still afraid of going to hell. I don't see why any atheist would say they're an agnostic. Total wuss move.

-- Beth Parker (marthasminion...), April 8th, 2006.

well i'm an atheist and i live in america (although i'm a buddhist)

my guess is that most americans, while thinking you are "weird," would not classify you as an atheist. buddhism is seen a religion.

if I lived in a place where my beliefs were constantly portrayed as being inherently unpatriotic and even immoral, then yes, I would feel a little put upon.

welcome to the world of democratic voters and "liberals."

OTM

once you stop believing in god, shouldn't god cease to be a big deal?

First of all, who said that atheist believed in God in the first place. Secondly, it seems to me (compared to Britain) that God is a big deal in America, whether someone wants it to be or not.

true. put upon wasn't really what i meant - aside from a little teasing when i was a kid, i've never really experienced the intolerance reflected in the poll. of course if i'd grown up in rural missipppi rather than a wealthy boston suburb things probably would've been different. And now i live in nyc, so i've pretty much been ensconced in the low murmur of npr my whole life.

i guess what i meant was disturbed. our crusading government being the most disturbing example of christianity resembling nothing more than a social disease. on the other hand, i think atheists are perfectly capable of starting wars. i mean, you think dick cheney believes in god?

First of all, who said that atheist believed in God in the first place.

just using that timeline as a device. sure there was a better way to say it.

I'm a Leo, so sue me.

Setting aside my dismay at being lumped in with these nasty folks, I must ask you, jhoshea, do you really encounter that many people like this? Seems a little over-the-top, but if it's true, my condolences.

oh ok, well then he's just being an idiot there.

my beef with your statement was just that i don't think it's accurate to generalize all agnostics as being simply closet theists afraid to commit to a strong position. while it certainly may be that many are like that, most agnostics i'd assume just aren't convinced either way about the existence of god, or whether questions like that are even knowable.

(for the record i consider myself atheist or 'non-theist' in that i don't believe in a personal god or gods. and that's about as far as my commitment to the concept of atheism goes.)

Can someone explain Ayn Rand to me?!

Doesn't the pope like, wear fancy robes? Terminally?

If this makes me a milquetoast who wishes I had Madelyn Murray O'Hare's clanking brass balls, so be it.

xpost

Oh please. Go dig in catholic history and discover how materialistic they were. Although that is something I don't use as a criticism. I just... do... not... believe in God. I used to flaunt that belief because I found people who did believe (in God) to be... simply... wrong and I wanted to convince them otherwise. Now? I just don't care. Whatever makes you happy. I'm still right though.

This is awesome, and so much cooler than: GET ONE BIBLE!

"Gray, Tennessee: Carletta Sims joined a financial firm in June 2001. Shortly afterward, two Baptist coworkers took offense upon learning that Sims was an atheist. Management granted the coworkers’ request to be assigned workspaces further from Sims. When Sims complained about a picture of Jesus left on her computer, management discharged her. Sims filed suit, seeking $250,000; U.S. District Judge Thomas Hull ruled that “religious discrimination (or preferential treatment of Christians) can be inferred.” In January 2004, the major bank that had since acquired the firm settled with Sims for an undisclosed amount.

Ada, Oklahoma: A Baptist student told a local newspaper she wouldn’t take professor William Zellner’s classes because he was an atheist, triggering a flurry of abuse. Zellner received harassing notes and telephone calls, some threatening. His car was vandalized, for a time on a daily basis. A local church sold “I am praying for Dr. Zellner” buttons. His children experienced shunning and beatings from religious children.

Minneapolis, Minnesota: First-grader Michael Bristor, an atheist, was denied an honor roll certificate when he refused to participate in an unconstitutional “prayer time” at a public school. For three years, administrators ignored the family’s complaints until a lawsuit was filed.

Caro, Michigan: In December 2001, Anonka—an open atheist who maintains a museum of Christian religious atrocities—appeared before the Tuscola County Board of Commissioners to challenge a nativity scene placed on public land. Commissioners responded angrily, saying she had no right to be present and proceeding to ridicule her. Anonka and her family suffered repeated harassment including annoyance calls, threatening calls and letters, and vandalism. In February 2004, the county settled in U.S. District Court, agreeing to pay an undisclosed sum and to issue a “public expression of regret.”

Pocopson, Pennsylvania: My own atheism came to prominence when I became involved in a legal challenge to a Ten Commandments plaque on the wall of the Chester County, Pennsylvania, courthouse. Neighbors organized a shunning campaign, some area merchants refused to do business with me, and I received hundreds of threatening letters and phone calls. (The depth of public animus against me became a subject of local news and magazine coverage.) I was forced to close my interior decorating business because of death threats that compelled me to stop visiting the homes of persons unknown to me.

Calgary, Alberta: An eleven-year-old boy (name withheld) experienced daily physical attacks and threats against his life by schoolmates—notably the sons of three local pastors—after protesting intercom readings of the Lord’s Prayer in a public school. He was repeatedly body-checked into hallway walls and attacked in the rest rooms. One pastor’s son stalked him with a butcher knife in an empty portable classroom. Despite the seriousness of this incident, no action was taken. The boy’s parents transferred him to another school for his own safety."

r u talking about that wuss?

"hoping that such claim that known cases of discrimination are insufficiently compelling will not lead aggrieved atheists to resign themselves to genuine abuse. "

Uh, I suspect the first set of people are refuting the existence of "God" as defined by the second group of people. The definition of "God" that you, uh, might be using here, although I feel like I'm putting words in your mouth -- that definition of "God", I suspect, describes something that most atheists would not label with the word "God", if they considered it at all. Maybe. It's hard to say!

this line moves me.

and just because i'm a buddhist doesn't mean i'm good at it.

DAMNIT!

Heh. The first thing that popped in my mind when I read the thread title.

-- Beth Parker

That said, atheists who champion atheism are a weird lot. Let's stand up for what we don't believe!

Read an interesting article a couple of years ago about how morals and religion are not intertwined in Chinese culture; how odd that seems in the Western world where religions corner the marketplace on morality.

"If you're doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing. His word isn't worth shit. Not with the good lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal."
-WS Burroughs

Atheism Versus Agnosticism

[edit]
Atheism is Stupid
Atheists claim with conviction that there is no God, a claim that (philosophically speaking) is as patently stupid as claiming that your God is God to the exclusion of all others. Monkeys cannot know the existence or nonexistence of God, and statements claiming such knowledge are stupid.
[edit]
Agnosticism is Stupid
Agnostics sit on the fence. While this is certainly the viewpoint that has the most integrity, it is also a cop-out, and is stupid.
[edit]
Theism is Stupid
Theists are mostly stupid. Moreover, they have no imagination. They could have had a good time organizing black sacrifices for a cow-headed God, but prefer to think by themselves and consider the concept of "God" to be rationnal. Pity. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire considered themselves to be Theists.
Unfortunately for we monkeys, you can't be anything but Theist, Atheist or Agnostic, rendering us all hopelessly stupid.

Like within their structure I might technically be an "atheist" -- I don't actively believe in a deity. At the same time, of course, I don't much care either way, and I wouldn't be surprised or upset if I were wrong about the no-deity thing, so that might make me an "agnostic." But if you asked me what my religion was, I would say I was Christian -- not because I believe in the tenets of Christianity, but because in a cultural sense that's what I am. Saying I'm an "atheist" simply because I don't believe in the tenets of Christianity seems really strange to me -- as strange as moving to another country and then saying I'm not an American anymore. I am an American, and at this point, probably no matter what; I am a Christian, and at this point, probably no matter what. I wouldn't say either of those things had changed unless I'd spent a long time actively converting to something else.

Which I think makes me a "humanist," maybe. And to be honest, most of the atheists and agnostics I know come from basically the same place. They wouldn't trumpet themselves as atheists or agnostics, because the whole point is that they're not particularly interested in hard belief systems and judgments like this -- mostly they seem interested in religions socially, or else have various spiritual impressions of the universe that don't include the need to come to firm conclusions on the existence/non-existence of deities. I mean, who said deities were so important? Like the Buddhism example points up, isn't it presumptuous to imagine that deities are the all-important defining aspect of religious belief? What if you're just totally uninterested in this question?

But maybe people in this position should start identifying as atheists, just so the people who responded to this survey will know that lots of us perfectly pleasant people wandering around really don't believe or care one way or the other. (Which -- and this is the kicker, I guess -- is totally indistinguishable from lots of people who actually would identify as belonging to a particular religion, but just aren't really into it.)

It always irks me that omnscient beings have these elaborate concerns with our affairs and such fragile egos.

Its all this worship crap that I have issue with in any case. Gods, god, life force, faith, good works, whatever - its the unthinking worship of what is really a bunch of many times translated (badly) ancient texts that just has me breaking out the Bab5 Sheridan and Delenn comparisons.

and if they're gonna get all up in our business like that, they could at least be more fun, like the greek gods. and at least there you had the option of playing them against each other. this dour insecure sourpuss monodeity with no court of appeals is a drag.

hey don't accommodate the positions of people like me, who are either uninterested in the whole thing or just don't conceptualize it that way at all.

Have I ever got they guy for you. The original three-hour series is interesting, as it outlines how the idea of atheism emerged and became acceptable, if not popular. But that's not even the fun part. The Atheism Tapes is him having very pointed conversations with people who both agree and disagree with him. All of it is worth seeing, but it builds to a peak in the last two episodes, where the British religious scholar Denys Turner gives his goddamn MOST convincing arguments, but is finally reduced by Miller to saying "either you believe it or you don't"; and by the incredibly charming, grandfatherly American writer Daniel Dennett, who asserts that the soul is real, but Darwin is still correct -- the soul is mechanical.

Some good hours of TV here.

The number of Christians who take the Bible to be God's word is around 33% in America and around 7% in England. I think you can probably use those figures to get the general feel in each country for religious zeal.

Regarding the main subject, not even the biggest atheists trust atheists. Voltaire hated Christianity and was the protypical militant atheist and even he said, "I want my attorney, my tailor, servants, even my wife to belief in God" because "then I would be robbed and cuckolded less often."

no, I think you can probably use those figures to get the general feel in each country for who talks on the telephone to opinion pollsters and whether they say what they think or what they think they're supposed to think

Nabisco, what you wrote made me think of Deleuze and his tranquil atheism, to exceed the death of god toward more interesting problems.

I feel like this poorly thought out idea of god is more a function of psychological factors than philosophical ones.

BUT it's also NOT logically coherent to to presuppose a universe without a "god" type figure (which I understand as the condition of possibility for a universe to exist at all). You're just positing a universe without cause, standing in the air, so to speak, and this isn't any more coherent than a God.

So you can assert one paradox or the other. does it really make a difference philosophically? im not sure, probably not. it obviously a difference politically and pragmatically, but then in that case both paradoxes serve their purpose.

this would be a unvierse without creator, not without cause, no?

Uh. Actually most real hardcore christians who know their shit dont really think god is "A big invisible dude with a flowing beard". Or any sort of "dude" at all.

It's true that if you define "god" to be "a condition of the possibility for the universe to exist at all" then, circularly, there must be a god if the universe is going to exist at all, but that's a really, uh, content-free definition you have there...

but why not? it makes perfect sense. why do they have to complicate it?

i mean, once you posit a creator, it makes as much sense as anything, plus its really easy to visualize.

Belief is the fart in a hurricane and faith is a conviction built on this fart.

Casuistry--yeah it is content free and that's kind of the point as i see it. as i said on another thread somewhere, God is not a thing or a thing in the universe. it's difficult to find a vocabulary to talk about this (you'll notice that I still defined god as a thing by the use of "God is X"). I fell into a paradox here and contradicted myself. that's the point.

so your circularity point is what i was trying to get at. now if you dont believe in god you're still stuck with a universe where every single part belongs to necessity, everything exists because of something else, everything exists for a reason, except, of course, the very fact that "everything exists for a reason", which has no reason at all.

there are innumerable ways to push both points of view to a paradox i think, whatever starting point you take.

1) the universe is because the universe is and that's what it does (obv circular even if you want to posit the existence of the universe as caused somehow, that doesnt evade the question of ultimate causality.)
2) the universe exists because god exists and god exists because that's what god does. (again, circular)

now if you dont believe in god you're still stuck with a universe where every single part belongs to necessity, everything exists because of something else, everything exists for a reason, except, of course, the very fact that "everything exists for a reason", which has no reason at all.

What are you even talking about. I don't believe in "God", and I don't believe anything exists for a "reason".

Back to Trayce a bit back -- I don't think "people of science" are generally considered to be (or in fact are) necessarily atheistic, and obviously there are any number of Christian scientists. (Ha, not "Christian Scientists," but Christian scientists.) There's not much exclusivity necessary between the two things, except that science certainly would call for a more metaphorical and less literal interpretation of the Bible. There's actually a level on which a really general belief in god can go well with the scientific mindset -- i.e., if you look at all this as a marvelous, endlessly complex and fascinating creation, which we, amazingly, can learn about. Science becomes a form of admiring god's handiwork.

There's actually a really simple funny way of bringing the Bible in line with science, which would be to claim that the thing is divinely inspired, but God didn't want to give all the science stuff away!

GOD: Well so I started off messing with these sub-atomic particle type things, right, but then I thought maybe some more wavelike properties might be interesting, too...
DIVINELY INSPIRED DUDE: Umm, what?
GOD: Just write "sub-atomic particles."
DIVINELY INSPIRED DUDE: How do you spell that in Aramaic?
GOD: Okay so long story short, in the beginning there was darkness.

if just want to shrug off the question then that's your business. but if you want your non-belief in god or "reasons" to be taken seriously you have to provide, uh, reasons or else they're just faith as i see it.

im using "paradox" as a synonym for circularity or self-reference. is this incorrect? apologies if so.

That said, having "reasons" for beliefs are very different from having "reasons" for existing. I mean, you're asking "Why is a cat?" and I'm saying -- I'm not even saying "A cat just is", it's more like I'm saying "That isn't a meaningful question to ask."

Yeah look, the reason I go for the Tao thing is exactly what Nabisco just outlined - the way "god" can dovetail into science.

The key point doing so is this (to me): "God" is not a being to be worshipped, a set of doctrines to follow that mean starting shit, persecuting people, proseletyzing, whatever.

Its the universe, it doesnt care! The idea you do good things cos daddy might be paying attention and give you a nice lolly is the most moot point evar, and it is when I realised this that I gave up on religion as a teenager. It was like "hey hang on. It isnt that there is or isnt a god - its that that isnt even the point".

In my better moments, I wouldn't try to verbalize it at all.

but ontological presuppositions are built into all those paradigms: under what basis are you telling me that the question isn't meaningful?

are you saying that phenomenon (the universe or whatever) started at some point? cause that's not the sort of cause i was talking about - cause & effect, ie the way things work.

i find the unmoved mover concept particularly fascinating because it seems to represent theism striped to its roots - with agency, omnipotence and long flowing beard as pleasing window dressing.

See now, this is what puts me off trying to have interesting debate on this board :/ That was a bit uncalled for!

Which I think is maybe part of what you meant when you said: "but answers are always implied based on whatever sort of systems your using to describe the world around you?"

Okay but so here's the thing that gets me. There's a level on which our answers to the "why is STUFF" question is interesting, because it's like a Rorschach test, or art -- we wind up projecting interesting stuff onto the question. (This says nothing about the universe, but a lot about us.) But the whole weird part is that ... well, you'd think that how we choose to answer the question would have profound effects on how we interact with the world around us, right? But I don't see that it does! Higher-level answers like the tenets of organized religion, those make a difference -- but the fundamentals, the question of how we answer "why is STUFF," that doesn't seem to make much difference. (For instance, lots of people answer the question with "because of this GUY," but they diverge widely from there and wind up with loads of different ideas about what to DO about that -- ideas that aren't always so different from people who don't hold the "because of this GUY" viewpoint.) So the question seems ... not "meaningless," because it has definite meaning, but kind of just not worth talking about. We have no basis to even start thinking about it, and from what I can tell, the answer we choose doesn't actually influence much about our actions (apart from the fact that a verifiable answer could disprove actual religious tenets of different sorts). (Besides which, just personally: in addition to the fact that I can't imagine an answer to the question "why is STUFF," I definitely can't imagine an answer that would prompt much more of a response from a human being than "oh." We can already go back and theorize about the big bang, and really, apart from some amazement, what does that really offer besides "oh?" Okay, if you say so, whatever -- not really anything I'm supposed to do about that, is there?)

(Ha, Drew on thread -- there is totally some Wittgenstein he could be bringing into this!)

But then you go and try to discuss it scientifically. D'oh!

under what basis are you telling me that the question isn't meaningful?

What does cat multiplied by velour equal?

(Answer: The latest record that Rolling Stone gave four-and-a-half stars.)

(xpost, let me read Nabisco...)

This is not the first thing I needed to see in the morning.

freud has a book called Leonardo da Vinci and A Memory of His Childhood? dude is so gangsta. he's long overdue for a critical rererereappraisal. bring him back i says.

B-b-but consciousness, which we don't really understand, is a product of the universe. It is the product that allows the universe to analyze itself.

Do you mean in the sense of "a prime cause/unmoved mover" way-back-at-the-big-bang thing, which this thread has mostly been about, or an omnipotent interested being? Because I have a hard time imagining how anything that proved the second to be true would be uninteresting to anyone.

"During the Cold War, the United States often characterized its opponents as "Godless Communists", which tended to reinforce the view that atheists were unreliable and unpatriotic (an example of the fallacy known as affirming the consequent). In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." [2]

In the United States, there is widespread disapproval of atheists. For example, according to motherjones.com, 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president. "

once you stop believing in god, shouldn't god cease to be a big deal? guess those religious atheists feel really put upon by society's theistic religiosity or something. jerks. they're like people who brag about not having tv.

They have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state. or something!
"American courts have regularly, if controversially, interpreted the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state as protecting the freedoms of non-believers, as well as prohibiting the establishment of any state religion. Atheists often sum up the legal situation with the phrase: "Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion;;." "
jerk be playing this down, or maybe you were being funny!

i cant really say "this is useful!" because that obviously already places it in a system of thinking already. but we can do it, so there it is, make of that what you will i guess!

but i do think it matters how we answer the "why is stuff" question personally because it seems to, in a very broad sense, impact how we think about it. believe in God, Nature, makes us believe that the world operates according to "rules" which we can predict and control. does this have a lot of immediate effect on us? no, but it would cause us to see thing a little different if we questioned that assumption.

Casuistry: you're not giving me enough credit!

now if we look at that foundation, say "it's good to make lots of money", and see that it's not really founded on anything, it a choice we make, because it's not tied to the whole "why is stuff" thing, then it can have an impact!

And I don't think religion originally intended that the ideas of heaven & hell were after death, but refer to the time when you're alive.

xxxposts, now out of context

(x-post to myself)

now the people involved in standing up for everyone's religious rights are probably sometimes movement atheists and sometimes just people who don't' want to say the pledge of allegiance or something. in that light, you're right, movement atheist look better than i gave them credit for. but i still find their unwillingness to examine their own theistic tenancies to be in poor taste.

Up above: there is nothing solipsistic about thinking that people don't have the tools to meaningfully answer these questions!

And Andrew: yes, that's what I was saying -- I'd totally be interested in an answer to either question (unmoved mover or beardy god), but it seems impractical to be too interested in an answer you're not going to get. To me these questions operate the same way that the question "when will I die" operates for a safe, healthy young person: it would be very, very interesting to know. But we don't obsess too much over the question, because we're in no position to get answers!

(about the solipsism - kinda)

That's why global bioethics is more appropriate for justice in health.

I keep getting the sense that your conception of "god" is roughly equivalent to "everything that exists" (or perhaps "the implications of everything that exists").

Certainly there have been people (Ancient Greece to thread) who have believed in God(s) that did NOT imply that the world behaved according to any rules that could be predicted or controlled.

to simplify my point and make it have at least a little to do with the thread topic: all i want to say is that atheism is as much of a "guess" as theism is. it's equally unfounded. unfounded beliefs are necessary and it's necessary to argue about them (and, i would argue, to attempt to ground them as best you can), but they're still unfounded.

and, to quote Quine: "What I am saying applies to what I am saying."

science doesn't, and can't, prove anything.

i don't know about worship, but they certainly share the tendency to take psychological refuge in their projections with the most saved of bible thumpers.

(x-post)

Wait, there's solid evidence that God doesn't exist?

Except for one thing: the Big Bang makes no sense and is rife with unscientific conclusions. Bypassing the whole infinite density starting point (we'll give 'em that), we come to problem one: there would be no cause for the whirling motion which would be necessary for this initial explosion to form the sorts of things we attribute to the Big Bang.

Like, say, who's computer simulation?

proof is just as dangerous as belief to my mind, and perhaps I should no have qualified evidence with solid. But evidence is that which is evident. There is certainly, to my mind not a lot of evidence for an interventionist god.

BIG BANG: Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

CREATIONISM: Our universe is thought to have been created by some incomprehensible intelligent force. Where did this creator come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

BIG BANG: How did it really work, outside of this unrealistic theory full of holes? We don't know. What caused the first whirlings? We don't know.

CREATIONISM: How did the creator create the universe? We don't know. Perhaps by some method similar to our Big Bang theory, but with the holes filled in by the Will of a creator. What caused the first whirlings? God.

x-posts

Like?

Lack of evidence of the existence of x cannot = evidence of the non-existence of x. It can, however, be used to suggest that the likelihood of x's existence is minimal, but when we're talking about something so intangible, and with so many definitions, as a God figure then unfortunately you just end up banging your head against a wall whilst religious people go "aaah, but that's evidence that God is mysterious and all-powerful, because he's really good at hide & seek".

I would prefer to talk about the causes of distrust of atheists and what should be done about it.

CREATIONISM: How did the creator create the universe? We don't know. Perhaps by some method similar to our Big Bang theory, but with the holes filled in by the Will of a creator. What caused the first whirlings? God.

For me, 'God' is a far from satisfactory answer to what caused the first whirlings. What caused God? The fact of the matter is we don't know how the universe started, and the Big Bang is just a kind of working theory. Adding god to the eqaution just creates another, unneccessary layer of mystery.

I probably haven't expressed that very well.

Noon by the clock
And so still by the dock
You can hear a foghorn miles away
And in that quiet of death
I’ll say, right now.
Right now!

This idea was addressed in my statement. What caused the first infinitely dense point? We don't know. What caused God? We don't know? How is either "better" than the other at this point? They're tied.

Okay, now progress to the next step: Things started whirling after the mysterious infinitely dense point exploded. What caused the first whirlings if there is no force acting upon the initial explosion? The Big Bang does not provide an answer. It just skips over the gap in logic. We are no closer to a scientific theory here than to say some unimaginable force created the Universe. No riddles are solved by the Big Bang.

I'm arguing a bit blind here, you seem to know a lot more about physics that me.

atheism vs. agnosticism

The other nice thing about the big bang theory -- aside from being simpler than creationism -- is that it is a... wait for it... theory; hence the name "Big Bang Theory". Creationism is often described in a book of god of one sort or another, making it an unquestionable fact for those following the religion. Certainly one can be a creationist without subscribing to a religion that posits that myth as fact, but unfortunately I think that accounts for a minority of creationists.

Take THAT, Occam!

There is, traditionally, no such thing as "evidence of the non-existence of x". (Maybe you could prove the logical impossibility of x, though.) There is only "a lack of evidence of the existence of x". If a lack of evidence of the existence of x isn't enough to make you think that x doesn't exist, then you have to remain agnostic on an infinite number of fanciful ideas, from little green men living below the surface of Mars to the possibility that the musical "Cats" is an unwitting but faithful representation of historical events.

I agree, but I was addressing the ideathat atheism is proven by science and more logical than creationism. Occam's Razor slices and simply ends at the limit of comprehension. But, then, somehow, theories are proposed which ignore Occam's Razor and these theories become established scientific dogma, which are just as worthless as Faith because they are faith-based. After all, where did ideas of Creationism come from? Logical leaps of faith! If you get into specifics of any particular religion, science will blow it out of the water, but the generic concept of an intelligent force that permeates the universe, free of religious dogma, is no more disproven or illogical than the Big Bang, for instance.

You can film yourself using the machines and put them on the web, but nobody will believe you. (I tried.) But, in the comfort of your own home, you can operate these machines with your mind and there is no other conceivable (as of yet) explanation for it. You can prove to yourself that your mind can operate, invisibly, upon matter. And, if you can prove that to yourself, despite what science teaches is possible, it will make you reconsider the idea of an inherent intelligent force permeating everything.

Otherwise, don't bother and just go along with what people tell you.

"God invented the universe" as substitute for "Don't destroy yourself trying to figure it out."

So why is the answer to "How did the universe originate?" important?

Religion/God is meant to be a guide of how to live so that you have peace of mind. (It goes beyond the "God works in mysterious ways" example.) It's popular representation reminds me of the Teen Jeopardy skit on SNL - "It's not WHAT you know, it's what you THINK you know."

It's not particularly, but it passes a few hours on the internet. Wasn't it Hume that said something to the effect of "philosphy is no more that a pleasant parlour game"?

That doesn't necessarily mean it is important - just that a some people with swords/guns thought it was.

That's a shockingly disingenuous statement.

"Here you will find video of a rather pointless feat I can reproduce
anytime, anywhere:

http://www3.youtube.com/watch?v=w86hDdUD03o&search=paper%20wheel

But, there is no need to "embarrass" myself if what you see in the
video does not strike you as "proof" of paranormal ability.

Thanks."

I'll keep you posted when/if I get a response.

Nope, that's not at all how it works. You make a claim that you can perform a particular act, describing exactly what it is you can do (in your case, physically operate a piece of machinery using only your mind); then agree to be tested as to whether you can perform that action under controlled (i.e., precluding the ability of cheating) conditions. You don't have to explain anything to anybody, just say what it is you can do, then do it.

"How to make a 'covered psi wheel rotate. Just let it heat up! If it takes too long put your hands on it."

Randi would no doubt explain it this way, regardless of the temperature or how fast I can get it to spin.

Yes, that's another explanation. Yet, it doesn't work for most people at first until they get the hang of it. Then they can get it to work rather quickly. Some people never get the hang of it. Does that mean we can change our electromagnetic field with our minds? What about when we leave our hands in our lap and just look at the wheel? Did these tests prove anything to anyone? http://www.meaningoflife.i12.com/telekinesis.htm ... Not as far as I can tell. Analyzing the scientific study of paranormal studies such as this is an interesting study in itself.

"We actually sell a DVD that has the secret of that routine.
Jeff Wagg
JREF"

my response was:

"Ah, I suspected as much. Quite a "routine" it is, too. I suspect you
can get it to work instantly regardless of temperature or hand
proximity as well?"

Lack of evidence of the existence of x cannot = evidence of the non-existence of x. It can, however, be used to suggest that the likelihood of x's existence is minimal

Which I think is wrong: Lack of evidence of the existence of x means we have to assume that x doesn't exist. You seem to be saying that because x could exist, we shouldn't say that x doesn't exist, even if there is no evidence. And I'm disagreeing with that. The likelihood of x's existence is minimal to the point of being .000000....0001%, which is to say, 0%.

Again, you don't have to prove anything, and there is no "panel of judges." You merely have to say, "I can do X under controlled conditions," with X being a specific claim of paranormal ability, then you just, you know, do X. If you actually can do it, you win.

You do know what "controlled conditions" means, right?

0001%, which is to say, 0%.

um, no, it's not at all!

Proof:

1.000...00 - 0.999...99 = 0.000...01.

0.999...99 = 0.333...33 + 0.333..33 + 0.333...33

0.999...99 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3

0.999...99 = 1

1.000...00 = 1

Thus

1.000...00 - 1.000...00 = 0.000..01

0 = 0.000..01

That's the wacky nature of the infinite!

Also, show me a concept that does exist. Again, what are you even talking about?

No-one is impressed by your grasp of high-school maths.

And people who rep for science but consider Occam's Razor to be a hard-and-fast law disgust me.

You do know what "controlled conditions" means, right?

Not likely. The guy already said he sells a DVD that explain my "routine." He hasn't responded to my follow up email about performing under any temperature with my hands in my lap. I'd say those are controlled conditions, no?

What could be done to correct that problem? Surely something better than seeing a representative of International Humanist and Ethical Union or American Atheists on talk shows.

Also, atheist morality has so much more of a higher-ground argument to it than religious morality: it is based on altruism, responsibility and respect rather than punishment or reward.

Honestly I don't know which has been worse since Paris, all the right wing bullshit, feel good "this will restore your faith in humanity" bullshit or smug atheists. I just had to point out um yeah Stalin & Mao bro when it was suggested that atheists aren't capable of the evil acts caused by religion

Atheist or not evil acts are usually motivated by the desire to gain more power/control. Religion is a tool, politics is a tool, violence is a tool... whatever combination gains more influence.

what are some other tools?

maybe we can start a thread

open goal there

I only meant they're tools in that context.

Casually throwing violence in there, good work

Brimstead: "violence not a tool for power/control" hmm interesting, good work, etc

Evan's post otm

Mostly

ISIS is a political organization who obviously want to gain more power and control, but for individual ISIS suicide bombers, religion is the final motivating factor. There is no end outside of glorifying Allah for these people, it seems

Brimstead: "violence not a tool for power/control" hmm interesting, good work, etc

― MONKEY had been BUMMED by the GHOST of the late prancing paedophile (darraghmac), Saturday, November 21, 2015 4:32 PM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

brimstead casts "context" spell

sorry, brimstead casts "chaos orb"

to assist the intellect-impaired darraughmac, i was just pointing out that there are MANY other things one could substitute into that sentence besides violence

i don't think he did that to equate religion with violence. the idea was that coercion takes many forms. Violence is probably the most basic form

Just to add on to what Evan said, for what I'd call "believing" violent groups -- whether it be religion or some other ideology -- I think there's often a substantial overlap between belief and recognition of the usefulness of the ideology in gaining power. Reading The Looming Tower now and it identifies a sort of confluence of people feeling humiliated by the west with a sense that they had turned away from "true Islam," and Qutb and Zawahiri and the figures the book discusses are among the ideological ancestors of ISIS, so I think it's this combination of "genuine" religious belief with recognition of the power of a religious ideology that claims to have the one true answer, bolstered by a sense that Islam is the opposite of the west and therefore the ideology to adopt in fighting the west.

I also think most of the atheist ideologies that are responsible for atrocities take on a kind of quasi-religious fervor, or at least they have the same sort of absolutist, redemptive bent.

some videos i was forwarded recently by my atheist friend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyfuv46z5pM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_hS-JXoTMk

Yes, I was not equating religion and violence. I was saying they're both elements taken advantage of in different degrees by those seeking control/power.

Adam you keep bringing up this particular atheist friend- I wouldn't say this person is the ideal representative for the majority of atheists!

then don't! i haven't.

you are otm in that first post btw

To assist the personality-impaired brumstead, I was suggesting that a consistent approach of terse sarcastic repetition of another person's point just makes you look like a cunt.

Something to watch ;-)

lol thanks i will take that into consideration if i ever give a shit what u think of me

but thanks for helping me realize the title of this thread asshole.

i didnt wander in here and call u a cunt so fuck off

something to watch ;-)

tips fedoraa

uh...

Having trouble keeping the assholes apart

You illiterate moron.
Xxp

literacy-impaired

Lol ur alright bruneau if u read the post again it was aimed elsewhere

Cool it's an situation

no place for persecution complexes in this thread

Lol

lol i love u all

oh i feel like an idiot

Fwiw I've always appreciated yr level headedness itt!

no place for persecution complexes in this thread

― when's international me day? (Noodle Vague), Sunday, November 22, 2015 10:27 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

dying

yall my rib