Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by diggerbanks on February 22, 2012 at 3:15am

Atheism will never become mainstream because it does not have the comfort and succour that religions have. Atheism has no social gatherings. It involves no hyperbole that catches the imaginations of religionists. 

With the rise of intellectual middle classes, atheism is flourishing (perhaps peaking) now, but compared to the ignorance and the need for something supernatural it is nothing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken on February 22, 2012 at 1:00pm

My thoughts on Atheism are very simplistic. It's a religion. It's a faith. And it's an organization that says we are here by chance with no specific purpose. Now if I'm incorrect on that.. then please feel free to correct me. This "New Atheism" Movement is a way for Atheists to continue blindly walking and blindly leading. Remove the Bible, remove God, let's talk Science.

Science has already disproved Darwinism. If you disagree with that then I suggest you emerse yourselves in current biology and the structure that is.. the cell. It's a more complex organism than anyone ever thought and by Darwin's own account, his theory would be wrong if it were discovered that the cell was more complex than originally thought. 

So that's evolution. Scientifically disproved, on so many more levels than just the cell, yet not accepted by mainstream scientists. Instead they claim that all evidence leads to intelligent design, but it just isnt so. They give no factual basis for this statement. It's like saying Shakespeare was not written by the man himself. Instead, over time, millions of monkeys were given pens and paper... eventually one of them came out with Shakespeare.

I'm really not here to rant about whats the right belief. Science leads to an intelligent creator. After reading countless articles from both sides I see the ridiculousness that is Atheism. And I also see the ridiculousness that is religion in itself. I don't call myself a Christian because the church has stained that word. I'm a Christ believer and follower.. and it's because of the concrete facts that the ones who set out to disprove it discovered that lead me there. Anyone who takes the word of another man without sincerely researching it is just as unintelligent as they claim their counterpart to be. I simply challenge Atheists to read the whole book, "The Origin of Species," and then read about modern discoveries in biology and science. It's just the first step in the journey to truth. 

  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kenny Howse on February 22, 2012 at 2:31pm

First of all Atheism is not a religion nor a faith, it is a lack of faith see Oxford Dictionary

“Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/

noun

[mass noun]

• disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin:

late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

Atheism has no organisation, merely free thinking people who wish to question the doctrines that they have been taught and in same cases brainwashed with since they day they learned to talk!  The “New Atheist” Movement is empowering otherwise powerless people to have a voice which they would not otherwise have, nobody is forced to follow them and they are not forcing or coercing anyone to follow them or believe in their beliefs.

Science has not disproved Darwinism, science has merely moved on from Darwinism, evolution is even more apparent with modern science than it was in Darwin’s day, remember Darwin lived in the 19^th Century and his discoveries at that time were truly amazing given the lack of scientific knowledge at the time, modern scientists are merely building on what Darwin discovered and if anything evolution has been reinforced, Darwin’s place in history is assured!

Quite obviously science does not lead to an intelligent creator, what a ridiculous notion, the very simple question I would put to you in that case would be “Where did the creator come from?” 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 22, 2012 at 9:09pm

My thoughts on Atheism are very simplistic

It's nice to be able to agree on something right from the outset.

It's a religion.

According to which definition of or understanding of the word religion? Why don't you define what you think religion means, the characteristics of a religion. I think it's going to be at that point that we see that you've simply added to and left off features of what most people think of when they think of a religion, and it's that aberrant definition that's causing you to think of atheism as a religion. 

It's a faith.

There's two ways to understand the word faith. There's a belief without, and often in spite of evidence that's the hallmark of religions. Then there's the trust type faith that we put in others and in experts. Neither of these applies to atheism. My guess is that you think that atheism is a claim of absolute certainty that gods don't exist and you think that this claim is a claim that one must accept on faith. Well. That's just not true. While there certainly are atheists who will make a claim of absolute certainty, the vast majority of us simply say that they see no reason, on the preponderance of evidence, to think that a god exists. It's the same thing you do when it comes to Little Green Men From Mars. Could they exist? Sure. Is there any reason to think they do? Of course not. But, as an "a-Martian-ist", what would you say to a person that said that you were adopting a faith position when it came to the non-existence of Martians? I bet you'd enjoy the kind of chuckle at the deep misunderstanding that we atheists have at your deep misunderstanding of our position. But there's nothing wrong with misunderstanding per se. We all misunderstand things from time to time. What's wrong is continuing on in the misunderstanding once you've been corrected, ignoring what you've been told. That's just dishonest. 

And it's an organization that says we are here by chance with no specific purpose.

Atheism is hardly an organization. All it is is a position on belief in god. It's no more an organization than theism is an organization. Atheists don't believe. Theists do believe. But neither is an organization. It's just a position on a question.

But anyway, you're certainly right that atheists accept the preponderance of scientific evidence indicating that we are indeed here as a matter of random chance. There's no reason to think otherwise. Neither is there reason to think that we have some sort of ultimate purpose apart from whatever purpose we have for ourselves as individuals or groups of individuals. I appreciate that you feel differently and you're certainly entitled to express the contrary view, but if you want us to come to your way of thinking you'll have to provide evidence justifying your belief. Otherwise what you have is faith that we're not here by random chance and that we have an ultimate purpose. And that's fine I guess– I mean I think religious faith is a dangerous thing– but you're not going to convince us of the truth of your faith like that. In the same way that a Muslim isn't going to convince you that Allah is the one true God and Mohammad his prophet by saying that she has faith that that's a true statement. So, again, by all means, convince us of the truth of what you're saying, but do it in a way that you would expect a Muslim or a member of any other religion to convince you of the truth of their claims, without recourse to a faith that you don't already hold.

Now if I'm incorrect on that.. then please feel free to correct me.

Done.

This "New Atheism" Movement is a way for Atheists to continue blindly walking and blindly leading.

Marking down your opponent's position to psychology or some sort of other non-intellectual motive is considered pretty poor behavior, so you know. You can see why it doesn't get you anywhere by considering where we'd get if I said to you "Christianity is just a crutch for the weak-minded that can't deal with fear of death and the unknown but who still want to be able to feel like they can get out of bed in the morning..." Now, I don't think that's true. But if I said it to you seriously it would be pretty obviously lame in the context of an intellectual discussion in which we should be discussing things as if the other person genuinely believes their position has the weight of evidence going for it as opposed to just believing in it because they want to. You have to engage with our counter claims against your position and rise up to the request for evidence or sound argument we're asking for. You have to do this if you want to be intellectually honest.

Remove the Bible, remove God, let's talk Science.

I think that's a great idea. Let's do!

Science has already disproved Darwinism.

That's absurd. LOL. What in the world's given you that impression?

If you disagree with that then I suggest you emerse [sic] yourselves in current biology and the structure that is.. the cell.

Okay. Suppose I haven't already read mountains on evolutionary biology and the claims of "Intelligent Design" Creationists; what about the cell makes you think that evolution isn't true?

It's a more complex organism than anyone ever thought and by Darwin's own account, his theory would be wrong if it were discovered that the cell was more complex than originally thought.

Um. Really? I don't---- I don't understand. You make a grand claim like "Evolution is false," pointing to the cell as evidence for this claim, and what you have to back it up is............ "The cell is more complex than previously thought, therefore evolution is false" and "We've learned more about biology, adding to our picture and correcting some things since Darwin's day, therefore evolution is false?"

So what? Can you really be saying that the fact that we now understand with our modern techniques more than what we understood about the cell 150 years ago is an indication that evolution is false? Darwin got the main mechanism of evolution– natural selection– quite right. He was wrong about some other things. He didn't have the full picture. Who in their right mind would claim that he had? I mean, what you're saying, if it was to be taken seriously, it invalidates Christianity! For, Yahweh and the Jews apparently didn't know everything either; things changed between the authoring of the Hebrew Bible and the authoring of the New Testament, therefore Christianity is false. I can only suggest that you think a bit more about what you've written before you click SUBMIT. It'll help us along in our discussion a great deal!

So that's evolution. Scientifically disproved, on so many more levels than just the cell

Oh? I'd love to hear about these other levels! Since the cell's complexity and our having learned that it is more complex that previously understood doesn't provide justification for your claim that evolution isn't true, I'm eager to hear about the other levels that disprove evolution.

Tell you what, let's make this easy and save some time: what's your absolute best, knock down, silver bullet piece of evidence that justifies the claim "Evolution is false"? Let's talk about that!

yet not accepted by mainstream scientists.

Scientists are quirky that way. They're gonna want some extraordinary evidence to unseat the 150 years of successfully won challenges to evolution before they're going to believe that the theory isn't true.

Instead they claim that all evidence leads to intelligent design, but it just isnt so.

I think you're going to have to clarify that statement a bit. Because. First. It seems that you'd agree with scientists if they claimed that evidence leads to intelligent design. Second. They just don't. No serious working scientist in relevant fields (for instance, not computer science. LOL) thinks that the evidence leads to intelligent design. So. Yeah. You'll have to help me to understand what you were trying to say there.

They give no factual basis for this statement.

Assuming for the moment that you meant that they give no factual basis for the statement "Evolution happens" (it's unclear what you meant insofar as your statement just above is unclear), they certainly do. There's mountains of evidence from converging lines accumulated over the course of 150 years. There's genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, developmental biology, ecology, zoology, ethology, geology and on and on and on.

I'm really not here to rant about whats [sic] the right belief. Science leads to an intelligent creator.

You may not be here to rant about what's the right belief, but when you make truth claims you'll have to back them up. And you'll have to back them whether you're ranting or just saying in a casual careless way, "Science leads to an intelligent creator." Because. You know. Again. If you want to convince us of the truth of that statement, it's gonna take evidence, not repetition of bald assertions.

After reading countless articles from both sides I see the ridiculousness that is Atheism. And I also see the ridiculousness that is religion in itself. I don't call myself a Christian because the church has stained that word. I'm a Christ believer and follower.. and it's because of the concrete facts that the ones who set out to disprove it discovered that lead me there. Anyone who takes the word of another man without sincerely researching it is just as unintelligent as they claim their counterpart to be. I simply challenge Atheists to read the whole book, "The Origin of Species," and then read about modern discoveries in biology and science. It's just the first step in the journey to truth.

I... I just. I have to LOL. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reason Being on February 22, 2012 at 1:07pm

I think as science continues to become more accepted (what a foolish thing to have to write,but it seems to be reality here in the States) more and more people will question their faith and learn more about atheism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kevin searley on February 23, 2012 at 9:11pm

YES

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gustaf D on February 23, 2012 at 3:29pm

‎"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -Isaac Asimov

Nuff said?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on February 29, 2012 at 5:25am

I've read none of Asimov's work. Did he say what "properly read" or "improperly read" mean?

I ask that because the cruelties of WW2 and many events since then demonstrate that we humans are capable of the cruelties the OT describes.

Perhaps Asimov was saying that instead of reasoning his way from belief to disbelief, as many of us do, the OT shocked him to disbelief.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William C. Walker on April 5, 2012 at 6:29pm

Tom, You are right.  I served in WW2, as a deck ape in the Pacific. I had two older brothers & two brothers in law.   They're all long gone, but they too would agree with you.  War is fucking INSANE.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on April 5, 2012 at 7:08pm

Thanks, William. In the Korean War I was a snipe aboard DD748, which in 1945 was at Okinawa shooting down Japanese suicide pilots.

War is insane for most; it's profitable for a few.

To folks who want to do away with nuclear weapons, I point out that for the first time in human history, the few who profit from war will also be destroyed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Megan Ehmbee on February 27, 2012 at 6:09pm

As long as people are being indoctrinated into their religions, there will be ignorance of other beliefs. I believe that as long as people are being raised blindly in any faith, they will have little understanding of any other faith. They may even have little understanding of their own faith. As you mentioned, your "Christian" friends have never read the bible, but that's the book they are meant to live their lives by. Not only are they ignorant about atheism, but they're ignorant about their own faith as well. They've been raised in Christianity in a nation where Christianity is the norm, and is the most socially acceptable form of faith. They have little need to read the bible and truly understand their faith when all around them are people interpreting it for them and leading them by the hand. I believe that as long as any faith continues to be the norm, there will be ignorance about atheism. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Natalie on February 28, 2012 at 3:15pm

I had this happen just last month in training for my new job. "My views" had come to topic, I stated "but, I don't let it get to me cuz I'm an atheist." My new friend playfully slapped my shoulder and laughed it off saying "oh whatever Natalie no you're not" I look dead serious and insulted back and her. "uh yeah, I am." she look surprised and since then I've become the center of curiosity for my co workers. Questions like "So what do you do on Christmas?" or "Why do you go to church?" pop up all the time. (My uncle runs is a pastor and he knows I'm not religious but I still go every now and then for his benefit). Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I have to be disrespectful.

Petty much the world feels you HAVE to have a religion. You HAVE to believe in god even if you don't understand or care. Atheism is still the new kid on the block of the modern world. It's for the modern person with a modern mindset. But our modern world is crowded with old world views. And the new kid usually gets picked on. Even Christianity went through that.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• …
• 27
• Next ›
• Page