An Atheist Manifesto - Page 3

Hasn't that been the crux of the whole self-esteem movement in the US for the past 2-3 decades?

He is playing obvious word games here. But, have fun on the merry-go-round...

Hahah - I don't know... I'm far too arrogant to look into that area!

I think it is relevant though - people are searching for some form of self-definition and all the more so now. It's not enough for them to 'be themselves' anymore....they need to be 'atheists', 'Christians', 'Muslims' whatever.

Why not just be yourself? Why the incessant need to submit to a label?

On another note and trying to get back on topic: I am of the opinion that these atheists are part of a wider campaign to 'secularize' society. I am not any sort of religionist so perhaps that helps in being able to see it; it is across the board - music, arts, literature, media, commerce...it is an all out attack.

Personally I don't necessarily mind per se - it's the shit they are pumping out in the dumbing-dwon process I object to as well as the glorification of ignorance and stupidity re-branded as 'rationality'.

I'm not sure who's behind it but I'm starting to suspect it's some sort of right-wing nutjobs. The Atheists all seem to be playing into the right-wing (even Neocon) agenda - witness Harris' arguments for torture and statements that some people are ok to be killed (ie Muslims).

Also suspicious is Harris' New-Age leanings that seem more pronounced now I have researched this more. This execrable movement is pure disempowerment and that Lama is the main tool (in all senses of the word), it's another unacceptable cancer of modern life that is irredeemably right-wing.

<ba dah bump>

Isn't he great folks? He'll be here all week.



I agree that the labeling has become almost pathological in nature. That said, it does seem like a natural human disposition to ask a couple of basic questions:

1. (origin) Where did I come from?
2. (purpose) Why am I here?
3. (destination) Where am I going?

Nice try. I won't be drawn into an idiotic argument, fraught with circular reasoning.

If you are a jew or a christian you are accepting the word of god (or the guy who's name may not be uttered). If you do so you also accept the responsibility to masterfully care for god's creation. It is very clear that jews and christians have not done so. Therefore the bible and Torah have been purposely misinterpreted to allow for atrocities against gods creation. God includes humans in "creatures" but clergy has conveniently separated us from the animal and plant kingdom. The result is hell.

So here we have an 86 post thread about it...
But... Not one bit of evidence that god exists. Yet biologists/geologists/paleontologists, etc all have tons of evidence that refute the timeline that the bible espouses.

Evidence for god ... Anyone???... Anything ???

This doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove the idea that the Bible is a literal work. It is clear that there are many parts of the Bible that are either complete fiction or at best, allegory. Yet there are a great number of Christians who deny even this! Talk about irrational...

This is not a thread about the existence of God - it is about the IRRATIONAL CONCEPTIONS SURROUNDING IT

Religious stupidity stems from irrationality.

Unfortunately we have atheist irrationality to contend with too.

BR, of course, is absolutely correct, by very definition. I don't need to go to my two-volume Oxford English to uncover that "atheism" is the absence of belief. The 'a', of course, actually signifies "a lack of" and the 'theism' is, pretty clearly, the belief in question.

Atheism doesn't posit any alternatives. It doesn't have to.

A belief in god isn't that rational, considering there's absolutely no evidence of any kind, at all, that any god exists.

In the absence of that evidence, an atheist is simply saying "I'm waiting for evidence."

Until that evidence arrives, an atheist is under no pressure to believe any damn thing other than milk on cocoapops turns the milk chocolatey, or anything else that can be verified.

If that were the case - as a poster pointed out above - then he should not call himself an Atheist. It is taking a position which necessitates a belief in something.

It's like Nietzsche said of the anarchists "If you call yourself one then it proves you are not one".

No, it isn't; you are quite wrong.

What is it, exactly, that an atheist believes?

Please remember the meaning of the word 'atheist' when you try and answer this.

They believe that God does not exist.

No, that is not what the word 'atheist' means. An atheist does not believe that god exists. That is what the word 'atheist' means. Atheist, from the Greek a- 'without' and theos 'a god', means that atheists do not believe that god exists.

Atheism is a lack of belief. That's all.

There is no evidence of any kind, of any nature, anywhere, ever, that there is a god. Absolutely none. Not a single piece of definite unequivocal evidence.

In the lack of this evidence, an atheist does not believe that a god exists.

If there were a simpler way, with simpler words, to put this, so they could be no more 'misunderstandings', I would.

An atheist is someone without belief in god. They do not automatically have to subscribe to any other belief system. They're out of that game altogether.

Semantics.

The fact is that NO-ONE WHO EVER LIVED knows whether there is a God or not.

Therefore any opinion on the matter is a question of belief.

The problems arise when atheists or fundies vie for a claim to 'the Truth' and try to promote what can only ever be a belief either way to a matter of fact.

Demonstratively false! Jesus Christ, a prophet in several faiths and the Son of God in the Christian religion, was born as a man and lived among men yet saved the sins of mankind on behalf of his Father. Moreover, life itself proceeds from the prime mover - God - therefore life itself knows its creator. Lastly, who are you to state what others know?


Indeed; everything is a question of belief. Science has revealed that neutrinos exist but we can't point to them individually thus we accept their existence upon science. Same with deity. Why should that be somehow different? We accept God's existence.


Mankind's weakness is demand for "truth" that he cannot know. The stronger man accepts that he cannot know all nor have ultimate proof for all. Therefore his faith is integral.

Good heavens, Segovius. Insisting that a word means what it actually means isn't "semantics." An atheist is someone who does not believe that there's a god. That's what the word means, and that's why atheists are called "atheists."

Atheists are out of the game. They believe other stuff.

All right. We'll try another method.

My first questions is: "Is there any evidence at all that any god exists?"

You can choose your god. Rama is a good god. Sango of the Yoruba, he's good. The god of Abraham of the Christians or the Jews, equally, or the old Celtic British god Nodens, Lord of the Hounds. I don't mind which god you choose. "Is there any evidence at all that any god exists?"

That's my first question.

What you have stated above is a BELIEF.

Any other claim makes you irrational and worse, makes me want to be an atheist.

Please stop it.


My point is that for this to be true the 'atheist' would have to have no interest in the subject whatsoever and no opinion.

To believe God does not exist is a belief.

When it is proved either way it can join the requisite group the proof dictates it should eb placed in but as you yourself say, there is no proof so far.

In my understanding something not proved is open to being believed either way.


Good idea.


I'd need more data and my first question would be 'what do you require as proof?'

Philosophically I do not believe you can prove that YOU yourself exist so it depends whether we are talking philosophically or scientifically or whatever.

Scientifically my opinion is that there is no proof of God nor can there be. But then again if someone like Moses were to see a burning bush speaking claiming to be God he might advance this as proof - I wouldn't but that is to say that the 'proof' may be of this nature.

In my experience atheists don't generally accept that say Moses actually SAW something and misinterpreted it but rather tend to suggest that he either lied or the while thing is a myth.

I think this is a mistake and evidence of superficial and facile thinking - why could not Moses be hallucinating for example?

On another point I think there is a philosophical flaw in your argument if we accept your definition of atheism. A fatal one.

If that is the correct definition then I could prove to you that:

a) Muslims are atheists and
b) Atheists are Muslims

due to the theological requisites of the Islamic religion.

Luckily your definition is erroneous so we don't need to go there

I like this idea of needing a word, a group, and perhaps even a manifesto to push.. the default state of not believing in something.

I think we should try it in other areas.

I don't believe the sun is going to explode and kill me tomorrow.

I propose the word asol, read as a-sol.

I think most of you are probably a-sols as well. In fact based on your comments, I'd guarantee it.

Will you join my default state movement or should I start busting out my manifesto for all the a-sols to unite!

Actually, there are written accounts - both ancient and modern - of people who have literally seen God or His messengers and talked to them.

You could have a sub-group too of those who think the sun will never explode at any times and will be always on.

Could call that one the More-ons....

I think what he was trying to say is there's been no miracles in front of a large crowd in our times. There have also been individual acounts of seeing UFOs also but are difficult to substantiate because they usually involve smaller groups.

And as far as sensing God I recently saw something on the science channel : http://science.discovery.com/videos/...xperience.html

A video of the clip from the show " Through The Wormhole ".
Anyway he figured out if you put a helmet with a magnet over someone's temporal lobe they get a definite sense of a presence with them. They of course call it " The God Helmet ".

By the way it's a really good program and there's much more to it on the program.

No. An atheist does not believe that there is any god or gods. An atheist believes other stuff. It would be "a belief" if there were any evidence.

In the absolute, total absence of evidence of the existence of god (and there is no evidence, none, at all, nothing), an atheist can be perfectly interested in the philosophical question and perfectly able to state their disbelief, and perfectly content with their answer.


I'll save you the labour: there is no evidence that god exists. It is impossible for you to find proof. There is none.

Understanding that there is none, the atheist is simply opting out of the argument. There is no point in asking the question, because there is no evidence. The atheist is not taking a position of belief.

There is evidence for the existence of neutrinos, and I believe they exist, even though I have never seen one. There is no evidence for the existence of god, none, nothing, and I shouldn't even have to take a position if I don't want to. If you can provide any evidence, once you have collected your Nobel Prize come back here and I'll tell you if I've changed my position.

That's really interesting...

It will also present a problem if God is actually proved to really be 'biological' - basically it would 'prove' God and disprove the 'no God' debate.

Of course God would be a different thing than most religions claim (though I would argue many Eastern ones and Islam particularly would survive it as in essence they say nothing which could not be interpreted this way..it is even Qur'anic in a way) but that would just mean a re-evaluation not a disproving.

The atheists though would have to organize a whole new assault in a whole new field.

No problem. It's still just semantics though.

Evidence for God would disprove the claim that there is no God

Evidence against God would disprove the claim there is a God.

The fact that there is no evidence puts the question in limbo. And either position is a BELIEF.

It's kind of like Schroedinger's Cat - the cat is not dead or alive till you have the evidence according to Quantum Physicists...you're argument is just that of the hidebound old traditional Scientist who can't grasp the New Physics; that the Cat MUST be dead until evidence shows it is alive.

It's old. It's limited. And it's a belief.

And worse than that - if it were provable that God does not exist no atheist anywhere would resort to this argument...they'd get out and find the proof. Because they can't they have to resort to wordplay to win their points.


There is absolute total absence of evidence for many things. That's why we are entitle to believe what we like about things in those areas.


I don't need labour-saving devices....I never believed there was evidence for God. It's more that I do not feel the need to dictate that everything needs evidence.

Why do you use a small 'g' btw? Is it deliberate? Interesting if so...is it like the Jews who have to write 'G-d' ?

Be ironic if it had a similar root to the religious usage.


That is the height of intellectual dishonesty we have reached here so far. Or depth maybe.

If atheists 'opted out of the argument' then we would not have this thread, Sam Harris would not write or sell books and no-one here would be voicing an opinion.

Far from 'opting out of the argument' atheists have taken the argument home, ripped off its clothes while tying it to the bed and stuffed full of viagra they are subjecting the argument to every form of perversion and abuse ever devised by man or beast.


You don't have to. No-one is asking you to.

My allegiance is more to rational thought than God but I am starting to think that it is far more likely I will encounter the Deity Himself before I see any evidence of that here.

No, they wouldn't.

There is no god, or gods only brain chemistry?

That's the ultimate discrediting of supernatural beliefs. Finally, the argument is over. It's all in our heads.

Proof of the neurological bases of religious and numinous thought is really proof that there's a biological, evolutionary cause for beliefs in the supernatural. The argument's over.

The argument is already over for atheists - that's kind of the point....they are already 100% certain of their position without any evidence.

Just like the religious fundies.

I was referring to scholars, religious and academic, who study religious texts (something atheists don't feel they need to bother to do in much the same way creationists feel they don't need to study evolution and for the same basic reasons) and observing that many religions say more or less exactly that already.

It wouldn't disprove God. It would merely disprove God as understood by Fundies and Atheists.

Great. Just keep me out of it when you invent your next belief.


I wasn't brought up a Christian. It's the Christian / Jewish convention to capitalise the 'g' in 'god'. When we write 'God', in the west I don't put any more weight in the existence of the God of Abraham than I do in the existence of !Xo the Hyrax of the Southern Bushmen of South Africa's Northern Cape or Niksus, the Celtic British god of the River Dart in Devon. So I don't capitalise the 'g'.


I find the argument interesting. I'm entitled to argue it. No: more than that, I want to convince you that you're wrong. Human beings are very interesting, are they not? If I were interested in the anthropology of Papa New Guinea I wouldn't need to share their beliefs to find brain-eating interesting.

There is no evidence that god exists. You're a believer. But atheists aren't playing that game. To tell them that they are is kind of arrogant. I'm talking about the rules. You're telling me I'm playing. I'm not. There's no evidence that god exists, there's no reason to believe that god exists and excellent neurological explanations anyway.

No, it isn't, not at all. This is absolutely, fundamentally incorrect.

Until there's any evidence that god exists (and there is none) it's simply a question of being rational about the matter. Show me evidence and I'll be absolutely delighted to reconsider.

You may find your time pressing, what with becoming the most famous person in the history of global thought and physics, but I'd be delighted if you had time to come back here and discuss it further. I'll be delighted to change my mind.

I haven't ever invented any but I'll bear that in mind.


Ah..just bad grammar then.


Why do you want to convince I'm wrong?And wrong about what?

You sound like you'd be a missionary if you were a believer...I find that disturbing.


I think you are telling me the rules I am playing if you call me a believer...worse it kind of implies you haven't been reading my posts yet still are commenting on them as if you knew what I was saying.

Do you believe in the planet Saturn? Beyond a faint twinkling image in the sky (that could be space dust for all we know) can you demonstratively prove its existence any other way? Your obvious failure here is that you ascertain higher credit to science than you do to religion for things that you demand ultimate proof for; then diminish everything else as irrational since it doesn't measure up to your assumed standards. Consider, in 1917 more than 70,000 saw The Sun Miracle in Fatima, Portugal (Nossa Senhora do Rosário da Fátima), where previously the Virgin Mary appeared to several shepherd children; while not a single person on the earth currently has ever seen Saturn directly... Before you pontificate on belief consider your standard for it.

But you see YOU have defined the rules; that you must be shown evidence.

That's fine - for you. It's when you try to apply it to someone who doesn't see it like that (me) that there's a problem.

I don't want you to change your mind...in fact I agree with you about many things...I just think in this one area of definitions you are being irrational.

Have you had a bad experience with some religionists?

I'm not interested in proofs...you are mixing me up with someone else.

I can't answer all the rest of it because clearly you have addressed this all to somebody else, I have been attacking atheism all thread.

Oh and your statement which was I think something not helpful to the cause.

No. Not 'bad grammar'. This is important, so I'll clarify.

I'm not talking about 'God'. I'm talking about all gods.

In the west, when we speak of the God of Abraham (you know, the god worshipped by Jews and Christians) we capitalise the 'g' in 'god'. That's the convention. When we speak of God, that's the god we're talking about.

But there are loads of gods. So I don't write 'God'. Because 'God' is just one god among many, and there's no more proof He exists than there is any other god. So I write 'g'. I'm not a Christian. I wasn't raised a Christian. I'm not singling out the God you're talking about. I'm talking about all of them. So I'm intentionally not observing that convention.

OK?

Ok..I get it.

Good to define terms as it gets confusing. I'll clarify something too:

When I speak of 'God' I am talking about the concept of a higher intelligence.

I do not necessarily believe in a creator-God as such or a punitive God or God as conceptualized in otrhodox religions.

Segovius, I'm going to have to disagree with you here, and agree with MJ.

I'm an atheist. I'm not claiming whether there is or isn't a God. I don't know, and for what I DO know, following any popular religion is of absolutely no use to me. I get all the things people get from religion from other places in my world and my psyche.

I also see that there is a lot of harm done in this world in the name of God and religion, and there is a lot of harm done because wicked people take advantage of others' belief in God and religion. The world would be a better place for more people if this were kept more in check.

That actually sounds more like agnosticism than atheism.

I don't think we disagree so much.

Of course there is so much harm done by religion...that goes without saying. And of course it is impossible that A God who created the Universe could care whether someone is gay or whatever...this is all nonsense.

I don't know if we mean the same thing but I also get all the things I need from other places too - it's just that sometimes these things are 'more' than myself if you see what I mean....so I believe there is 'something else'.

But my idea of that something else is nothing to do with what religionists think.

My disagreement with most atheists boils down to the fact that they seem - as far as I can tell - to often deny this (or not consider it) alongside rightly decrying all the Judeo-Xian nonsense.

There are many sane spiritual conceptions that are non-Western too.

No point in being a slave to a conception of God created by idiots even if it is only to deny it...there's more than that.

segovius, you've said a lot of sensible things in this thread, but this is not one of them. Setting aside the specific issue (i.e., "someone is gay") how can you categorically claim "it is impossible that A God who created the Universe could care" about X and dismiss such an idea as "nonsense?" In fact, isn't the opposite argument more likely (i.e., that a god that created the universe would care about what goes on in it, even to what might seem like inconsequential (to you or I) details)?