| Comments: |
Then there's the agnostic: "You, prove that God exists. You, prove that god doesn't exist. If you guys need me, I'll be over there sipping a martini."
I used to be proud to call myself agnostic, knowing it was the only logically defensible position in the absence of any evidence. But the pragmatic position is probably atheist. Sometimes you just have to call bullshit.
Atheism = not believing that God exists Agnosticism = believing that the question of God's existence is unknowable
So you can be both an atheist and an agnostic. Russell described himself as an agnostic.
I also like
Igtheism = Assertions about God are too meaningless to be either true nor false. In other words, religion is not only not right, it is not even wrong.
I've not heard of "Igtheism" before. The closest I've heard has been "apathetic agnosicism". Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter. There's also the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic from which you can get a Bachelor Degree from the International University of Nescience and become a legally ordained as a Minister, Pastor, Rabbi, Priest, or Priestess. In some states that means you can legally marry couples. My wife considered becoming a priestess, but I'm not sure I want that kind of responsibility.
I think I need to read this author's books!!! I am definitely in the minority according to those stats. I can barely believe that so many people fall into those categories because 80-90% of the people I know do not hold such beliefs!!!
From: ret4rd Sun, 24-Sep-2006 10:12 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
What percentage!!! Love exclamations!?!
[Tags | doomed, …]
I was raised Catholic and have been solidly agnostic but not filled with rage at organised religion for a while now; if this dude succeeds in making his point of view standard in the US, I think nonetheless that the world will be a better place. Less doomed, as it were.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/23163723/466222) | From: g_na Sun, 24-Sep-2006 7:12 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
If those percentages are correct, then I am thoroughly justified in believing most people/Americans are idiots.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/30682130/485458) | From: tiff_seattle Sun, 24-Sep-2006 7:17 PM (UTC)
Another quote from the same guy | (Link)
|
"Tell a devout Christian ... that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."
At last! C*mm*n s*ns* about religion.
Poor bastard's probably going to be on his way to the camps just as soon as the coming shit-storm hits, but hey, he did his best.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/20644159/936728) | From: fanf Sun, 24-Sep-2006 8:27 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Dawkins has finally published his god book, but (according to one review at least) it's disappointingly badly argued.
That was certainly the problem with his other books. He's best used for summarizing inane objections from religious people, because they all write to him. But he pads his good arguments with bad ones, and it makes his books very cringe-worthy.
those statistics are just plain creepy....
He does not actually come out and say from which specific poll those statistics come, anywhere in the book. He just cites Pew and Gallup. So we should all take them with a grain or two of salt.
From: jsl32 Thu, 28-Sep-2006 7:53 AM (UTC)
in the case of gallup, 8 or 9 grains of salt. | (Link)
|
on another note, i'm curious about why people are expected to prove faith in this one specific set of circumstances. faith is by definition unprovable, so any 'arguments' that it's 'false' are kind of beside the point. i don't understand why some people want to spooge off about how intellektuly superior they must *obviously* be because they don't have faith in certain phenomena over other phenomena. it's a very improperly feudal mindset.
I've read The End Of Faith; most of this book was about how we are at war with Islam, and took a rather paranoid destroy-it-before-it-destroys-us line. At one point he raised the possible necessity for preemptive nuclear strikes against Islamic population centres.
His take on religion is sensible, but his politics might be a bit dubious. Interestingly enough, when he talks about the Middle East conflict, he makes no mention of ultra-orthodox Judaism's influence on Israeli government policy, placing all the blame for the conflict on the Muslims. Which makes me wonder whether or not he has an agenda.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/38506853/995787) | From: misuba Mon, 25-Sep-2006 1:51 AM (UTC)
Re: A dubious spokesman for atheism | (Link)
|
he makes no mention of ultra-orthodox Judaism's influence on Israeli government policy, placing all the blame for the conflict on the Muslims.
This is false, although the brunt of his direct attack on Judaism is in the afterword to the paperback edition, and some of the rest of it is indirect. He goes lighter on Judaism, but given that Harris is a New Yorker who began the book on September 12, I think what bias there is is sort of understandable, and at any rate easy enough to correct for.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/32071959/1229986) | From: kineticfactory Mon, 25-Sep-2006 9:05 AM (UTC)
Re: A dubious spokesman for atheism | (Link)
|
I got my copy this year, brand new, and didn't find much reference to Judaism, at least in the context of the Middle East conflict.
Being angry at Islamism on September 12, 2001, is perfectly understandable; though he doesn't seem to have tempered his anger much, and the result is a rather one-sided point of view, that seemed to me to be more about recruiting the Dawkinsian atheists for Bush's War On Terror than finding a solution. The way he has given short shrift to the possibility of an Islamic reformation sidelining the Wahhabiists, whilst entertaining Strangelovian ideas of nuking cities, does make him seem a bit unbalanced.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/76241926/54143) | From: xinit Sun, 24-Sep-2006 10:04 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
With that many people thinking that they're going to be called in front of their god when they die, you would think that people would just fucking be nicer to each other.
According to (some) Christians, you don't need to be nice so long as you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Take a look at some chick.com for numerous statements to this effect.
These are the Christians who get off on the virgin birth and the ressurection, and then stick with the old testament for everything else.
Anything Jesus actually *did* or *said* is a big no no.
Being born, dying for original sin.. It's dramatic. Brings closure to the old testament. Being kind to your neighbour? The rich getting into heaven like a camel going through the eye of a needle? Forget it.
Many people are assholes. They'll use whatever veneer they have available to justify their actions. Do you really think these people would be any different if they were atheists?
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/42702613/9726429) | From: heliocide Sun, 24-Sep-2006 11:12 PM (UTC)
No Dogs go to Heaven | (Link)
|
Great post today, jwz. My next stop was this, which immediately suggested itself as related.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/46003428/10235073) | From: ashura93 Mon, 25-Sep-2006 1:24 AM (UTC)
God is an American | (Link)
|
As a Catholic I know I'm supposed to be one of those gas huffing types many people seem to fear. Maybe I am. I mean, I believe in God. I also believe in Jesus. Likewise, I believe in evolution and the scientific method. I believe two men should get married if they want and that love is the greatest proof of God there is. I believe that abortion is wrong and that every woman deserves a choice*. I believe in cold hard facts. I believe that there is an ineffable divine presence.
Mostly I believe that I feel bad for people that don't have the ability to be logical and illogical at the same time. Too many people are all wrapped up in being consistent and that just sort of seems sad to me. It just seems limiting to me. Which is probably a clear sign of an intrinsic insanity.
Lastly, I believe that I really doubt those numbers; Lies, damn lies, and statistics after all.
*(I've worked clinic defence and fully support a woman's right to choose. Healthcare is a right.)
I'm not religious, but I have to say this is one of the most insightful posts I've read from someone who believes in God.
Thank you...
You're welcome.
Seriously, most people who are religious aren't mouth breathing maniacs intent on rolling back the clock to the middle ages. Sure, there are some and they get all the press but its sort of like any other stereotype. The dramatic minority being used to define the majority.
What is interesting is that things like the above tend to push people who do have religious leanings *further* towards religious conservativism than anything else. Its that whole "I'm being attacked so I must defend myself!" sort of thing which ends up polarizing people. Rarely, if ever, does it undercut anyone's faith or belief anymore than a papal bull would make you question your own morality.
“I feel bad for people that don't have the ability to be logical and illogical at the same time.”
Nobody has that ability: logical + illogical = illogical
Thanks for proving my point.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/26104787/6145587) | From: lohphat Mon, 25-Sep-2006 4:33 AM (UTC)
tsk tsk tsk | (Link)
|
You are *so* going to hell for this...
OMFG! The hairdryer made me chuckle noddingly. Hilarious bedtime story :)
I think a poll showed that about 1/3 of Americans believed 9/11 was an inside job. Americans believe all kinds of wonky things. Europeans aren't doing much better--they believe they can grant themselves endless government services and not have children to pay for them.
It's not quite fair to compare the "Golden Rule" (actually, there are two rules, not one: love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself) with Deuteronomy. One is God's commandment, the other is Mosaic law, which I suppose could be considered inspired by God. Also it's worthwhile to remember that the Mosaic law was designed for people some thousands of years ago. Using modern mores to judge ancient morals is a fool's exercise IMO.
“Using modern mores to judge ancient morals is a fool's exercise IMO.”
I totally agree... but, well, God hasn't issued a rewrite. It's ancient morals or eternal damnation.
From: jsl32 Thu, 28-Sep-2006 7:56 AM (UTC)
the bible covers how to consider the old testament in light of the new testament. | (Link)
|
funny how context gets disregarded when it comes to christianity.
From: were_barbarians Sat, 17-Nov-2007 5:42 AM (UTC)
Atheists are distrusted by 97% of the U.S. population | (Link)
|
Another interesting/amazing statistic for you: Atheists are distrusted by 97% of the U.S. population From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in "sharing their vision of American society." Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry. This comes from a study done at the University of Minnesota. As reported at Pharyngula: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 ( http://secularoutpost.blogspot.com/2006/03/atheists-distrusted-by-97-of.html) | |