11th August 2010
“I don't believe in God. Atheists should get together and compose a message of enlightenment and say let's replace a belief system that is not only outdated and primitive but also very violent, with something new and humanistic and tolerant.”
August 11th, 2010 at 7:46
Atheists keep saying they don’t believe in god.Atheists who are you trying to convince us or yourselves? I wouldn’t waste my time telling other people what i don’t believe in.You all need to get a life.
August 11th, 2010 at 8:19
Believe me, tech, I have a life. I have a very full, happy and fulfilled life. I live by my own moral standards and do not require a book or anyone else to tell me what to think or how to think it.
August 11th, 2010 at 9:12
The problem is Tech, that in many societies the ruling classes mandate that people should believe in a particular god. Even in the west where we should know better the forces of religion are trying to impose their twisted and irrational view of the world and morality on those of us who reject it for sound logical reasons. It is not religion (and definitely not your religion) that is persecuted today, but freethought and atheism.
That’s why we are becoming vocal, that’s why we will keep on keep making the arguments.
August 11th, 2010 at 9:36
If you all don’t believe in God, then don’t ate any food that god created. Are’nt you ashamed of yourself. Create your own foods & eat it.
August 11th, 2010 at 9:39
GrumpyOldGit,
Can you live hapilly without God’s food supplies?
August 11th, 2010 at 11:03
sol, you’re missing the point as usual.
There is NO evidence that god creates food. Nothing, zilch. Just a few crappy books written by ignorant people in medieval times. Is a book proof? NO IT ISN’T.
Come back when you have something meaningful to say because your last two posts are just STUPID
August 11th, 2010 at 11:05
Well said Hypatia.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:45
Sol,
I made an awesome omelet this morning without any divine intervention.
Realizing how many ignorant people are out there believing nonsense just like you, scares me.
August 11th, 2010 at 14:03
Question begging comes so naturally to him I doubt he even realises he’s doing it.
from the QOTD
I think for the first time in history we are living in an age where this is actually possible. The internet is alive with atheist forums (fora?) demonstrating the extent to which rational thought is coming to the fore.The fact that an ex Muslim like Ayaan Hirsi Ali is becoming such a prominant personality and rallying point is encouraging. There is the BHA bus campaigns and the high profile new atheist authors like Hitchens and Dawkins selling books by the million. All looking good to me.
August 11th, 2010 at 14:59
I, for one, would gladly sign any message that promotes humanity without any dogmatic ties. Sounds a bit like the humanist manifesto, though, doesn’t it?
August 11th, 2010 at 15:53
Devout Atheists,
Oh yeah…no divine intervention?
Did you see what is your omelet made of?
Where do you think the eggs, butter or oil come from? Does it come from your lousy imaginations?
August 11th, 2010 at 16:03
And let’s not forget that Ms. Ali lives under threat of death because she is an apostate of the “religion of peace”. Some pay a high price for their disbelief.
Chef Sol is a crack up today! I think I’ll have pork chops for dinner. God sure did make pigs delicious.
August 11th, 2010 at 16:20
You’ll be eating non other than the blazing pork chop from !!HELL!! Capt’n.
August 11th, 2010 at 16:24
Beyond humanism, the quote suggests an idea to me, an idea that humans may have a collective opportunity to exist outside of Darwinian rules – if we band together. This banding together to defy Darwin could be a a collective “purpose” that may offer “THE PURPOSE” in life that many claim to seek.
The individual “regret” that we, as a species, have arrived at this point in cosmological time quite accidentally would be replaced by a real societal-version of Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum. I believe it would have to be a successful implmentation of a plan outside of Darwinian “Space and Time” for it to work in this way. Because the Darwinian rules are so fundamental, I am not optimistic that society could achive such a collective goal, but that is what would make it so truly special. Darwinian principles are just so almighty powerful on a universal scale…
YSG
August 11th, 2010 at 16:44
I welcome any increasing acceptance of atheism and atheists, but I disagree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali today. Already the simple-minded believers argue with us that “you are a religion too”, and that a person canot live a good life without some bible telling them what to think. If there ever is a widely disseminated document purporting to be the authoritative statement of atheist thought, the religious will jump on that and declare us to be no different than them, we have a bible, we have a central belief system. (But paradoxically, they will still oppose us getting the same tax-exemption they enjoy.)
Atheism will gain acceptance as more people comprehend an atheist is someone’s son or daughter, father or mother, friend. If anything needs to be disseminated, it is the positive statistics about atheists, that we are more socially healthy than believers. The religious like to say, “By their fruits ye shall judge them.” Well, our fruit is better than theirs. Here is a short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg&feature=player_embedded
Once the acceptance grows, an attempt of the religious to label all atheists as evil or substandard, against all evidence to the contrary will backfire on them. For example, a white supremacist cannot go yelling “nigger” at his workplace and not face consequences. Now, there still exists pockets of KKK affiliation in outlying areas, but they do not have the respect of the general population, as a whole. I am not optimistic enough to believe religion will ever go away completely. Just as the KKK hangs on, so will religious bigotry. I do hope I live to see the day that both the KKK and the church get the same level of respect.
Movies and TV need to have central characters that are atheist. It doesn’t need to be anything that is shoved down anyone’s throat, or it will be rejected. If done right, it can relay that atheists are contributing members of society, worthy of consideration and respect. Instead of having a central document, as Mr. Ali proposes, let us instead celebrate individuality and freedom.
August 11th, 2010 at 16:45
I am not sure why you would want to do this, unless you take a nihilistic view of Darwinism, or a particularly prescriptive one. But actually it wouldn’t work because “banding together” becomes just another enviromental variable acting as selection on the population. You are right, the Darwinian algorithm is powerful and I suspect inescapable, but personally I am not worried by that.
August 11th, 2010 at 17:51
I like the question AMC. Since the invisible hand of the Darwinian algorithm is the de facto standard/minimum, and because the algorithm is so powerful, if we as a species could produce a sustainable (even locally sustainable for just our planet) future that is in contradiction of this Darwinian algorithm, that would be a feat. Maybe one does it because, like climbing certain mountains, it is there and would be an investment of significant effort.
To simply slipstream through existence, guided by Darwin, may not be every species’ idea of fun. That human tribal forces continue to threaten the human species suggests that our survival (if that is important) may need some outside-the-algorithm thinking.
This begs the question of what exactly the algorithm encompasses and whether survival could depend on accessing a here-to-fore underappreciated refinement. Just as we moved from classical to quantum views of physics, maybe there is a quantum view of Darwin that becomes relevant.
And thank you Margaret for the link. Some day the religious may pop the redpill and escape…
YSG
August 11th, 2010 at 21:13
sol:
Pure speculation – and wishful thinking.
Can’t you put a coherent argument together you dumb-ass!
August 11th, 2010 at 21:42
Hypatia,
That must be a rhetorical question. The forum is littered with responses to that question!
I do appreciate your pluckiness however…
YSG
August 11th, 2010 at 22:19
YSG
The difficulty is in appreciating what within the human phenotype is available to selection. As a self conscious and environmentally manipulative species we are already testing the boundaries of natural selection. The hubris is in assuming that we can be immune from it.
I appreciate the imminent danger of the naturalist fallacy in this as well as the is/ought trap that could dogmatise our psychology in evolutionary terms as rigidly as religion has done in the past and it will be incumbent on every age to examine its ethics in the light of its own circumstances. This is why it is kind of O.K to allow some moral relativism in respect of the past, but not in respect of the present. Mohammed was not a pedophile by his own lights but today he would be, making the point that we cannot be guided by ancient mores but must reflect on our own society. We are “better” than Mohammed or Jesus or their contemporaries but only because we have knowledge they did not possess and, in the developed west at least, the luxury to explore the moral implications of individual freedom. It may not always be so.
August 11th, 2010 at 22:36
Ahh…the Atheists always claim they’re knowledgeable. But why they still can’t answer who create the 1st. design?
August 12th, 2010 at 0:30
Santa Claus did!!!! I have just as much proof as you do!
August 12th, 2010 at 1:20
For Solomon,
I have found a video that answers the question your ask over and over, “who create the 1st design?” Enjoy.
August 12th, 2010 at 10:32
As have expected, a cheap demonstration to refute creationism doctrine. Did’nt answer who creates the 1st. design at all. You try hard Margaret but sorry …you fail.
Now…Athists are just like idolaters but they don’t realize. They crave for solid evidence, similar as the idolators, who can’t do without visible solid matter in front of them, Chistians & other pagan religions alike.
August 12th, 2010 at 10:52
As expected, you take the easy answer that was fed to you by clergy that does not make any sense over the sensible, eloquent, rational wondrous explanation that is infinitely better.
Can’t fix stupid, especially when it wants to be stupid.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:15
Can’t fix stone hearts, especially when it wants to be stone hearted.
August 12th, 2010 at 13:22
sol,
That would mean you’re stone hearted about Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism and all the other religions you’ve rejected.
August 12th, 2010 at 13:29
I reconsidered my temper and use of the word “stupid.” It was the wrong word to use. You may not be stupid, and there is yet hope for you to wake up from your delusions. The correct word for your mental states is “brainwashed.” You have been mislead and lied to your entire life. Why does that not make you angry?
August 12th, 2010 at 16:14
How can you say someone is being mislead by something that can’t be refuted? Its you that have been swayed from the true path due to arrogance & boastfulness. Don’t you ever consider for a moment the unrefuted revelations brought out by Islam?
August 13th, 2010 at 19:24
I consider the revelations of the holy books as no more relevant than the hallucinations of mental patients.
There you have it, that is the answer–the source of your revelations are ancient-day charismatic insane people. Or maybe the revelations came from scam artists who saw fleecing gullible people as an easier way to make a living than working in a useful job.