roachboy

what i meant is that atheism is simply being referenced more often as the fortunes of the christian right disintegrate. so it---"atheism"---is a way for the christian right to talk about itself, really in the present context---since there is no atheist thing or organization--and despite the projections of some xtian-types, it is not a religion, not the mirror image of one, not the same at all---it is impossible to know about shifts in non-belief statistically....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ourcrazymodern?

Ah, hell, you could no doubt add it up if you wanted to.

Emphasis on the doubt.

I admire you, roachboy.

Thank you!

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

papermachesatan

Bandwagon? maybe. I think the increase is, more than anything, due to a few people making the first leap and revealing their atheism. No one wants to be the person walks the unbeaten path but people are more willing to follow in other's foot steps. Now that it's becoming increasingly socially acceptable, I think you will find that more and more people are willing to "come out of the closet" and reveal their lack of religion.

Datalife2

I believe in aliens more than god.

__________________
where's my lighter?

skada

i believe its more kind of trend and decresing amount of religious intensity among people ...
and its good ... people should not have imaginary friends

__________________
No Signature

Willravel

Having been an atheist since about the age of 14 (having only really come out in the past few years), it's been interesting to watch it become main stream recently. I'm still curious where it will come to rest in the public eye once the Zealot has left his oval office and we see a more secular phase in the government for the next 4 or 8 years. Hilary is Christian, sure, but so was Bill and that didn't seem to stop him from leaving god tied up outside the White House while he worked. Will this end the rebellious movement away from religion or facilitate the momentum already built? Only time will tell.

Ourcrazymodern?

I live and breathe.
Would a believer tell me I must not think?
I think not.

God would have us complete (his) grand experiment.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Baraka_Guru

I have remained an atheist since birth, but as a Canadian, I get a little nervous about what's happening south of the border. I don't think we can hinge this kind of thing on the president. It is more about the culture at large. Christians in general have a lot of influence and power in America. It will be interesting to see how things pan out with atheism becoming more visible and in many cases assumed. Perhaps a culture war, perhaps not. Who knows?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ustwo

Christians are far less likely to vote enmass for one candidate or party than Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, or union labor.

Really I think most of it is meant to scare you. Those nasty f undies are coming for you, you better vote for someone to fight them!

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Baraka_Guru

I'm sure there is influence beyond casting ballots, is there not?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ustwo

Well if so they are doing a bad job about it. America has become far more open to thinks like gay marriage then they were 20 years ago. Its wrong to say they have no influence, but I think its far more of a smoke screen used by their opponents then a true movement.

Abortions are still legal, and all that.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ChefDylan

When I was young my step-father was killed in an auto accident by a drunk driver. Paul was a good man. He had just become a father to my little brother Michael. My parents had an argument and he went to cool off with a drive. His toyota was smashed between a cadillac and a van driven by a 4 time convicted drunk driver.

Following this my mother filled the house with books about death and dying. I read many of them because I too was troubled with where my dad was and why he wasnt coming back. I was 9.

At my father's funeral two of his brothers showed up drunk, having driven themselves to the service. My mother was.....unpleased. For the next hour she listened to a catholic priest explain to her how all this was part of "God's Plan" and how we all had to surrender to his will and that he was a kind and loving god who had....blah blah blah. I think you can all fill in the blanks.

That day my mother became an Athiest. She refused to believe in a god who could take a father from his son. She tried for several years to find a god she could find solace and comfort in. She never did. My mother is an Athiest and a well educated and reasoned woman. I am a Buddhist and we discuss theology on occasion.

this is her side: atheism is not, for her, an easy choice. She is not angry at any religion, tho in my opinion this would be an easy call for her to make. She believes in herself. Without ever having read Ayn Rand she shares many of her ideals. She believes in the grace we all have within ourselves. The ability we have to be good people. Good not in the "Holy" sense but in the sense that we excell and create and lead our lives without crediting any god or gods with our achievements but not using him as a crutch or excuse when things go badly.

I think Atheism is a positive choice for her and fits well into her lifestyle. My mother never has been or will be "rich" or independantly wealthy. She prefers to stand on her own two feet. I admire my mother for who she is and what she has done with her life.

__________________
Duct Tape is like The Force...... There is a Dark Side, a Light Side and it holds the Universe together!

Infinite_Loser

Seems bitter to me >_>

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ourcrazymodern?

If sort of licensed,
We might have it in our genes
Or in our Levi's.

Atheism will never promote itself because it has no agenda. The godists don't get this and won't, even after they die.

You have to laugh or else you'll cry!

Theism already experienced its rise - what makes it selfish?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Infinite_Loser

*Shakes his head in shame*

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Bill O'Rights

Well...more people have seen aliens.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

analog

Some people are upset at religion's control over public figures in government.

Some people who were once very religious are later exposed to the internet, or other sources, and question what they've been taught. Information has become more readily available than ever in just the past 10 years, by virtue of the internet alone.

People with access to information and different points of view will either shut it out, or learn. Sometimes, people learn and decide the new information makes more sense to them because now they have that information. Anything can seem nice, or good, if you've never been properly educated in what else is "out there". Plenty of people convert to religion, just as plenty of people convert away from religion.

Some people find emptiness in their lives and religion fills the void. Some people feel the same emptiness and feel nothing for a "God", seeking their fulfillment elsewhere. Some people are just looking for acceptance into a community or social group- and that argument works for both being religious or being atheistic.

People educate themselves and make decisions... they figure out what's important to them and decide on what feels right to them. People are armed to the teeth with information and the frequency and high profile of religious debate makes people either steel, or question, their existing resolve.

The real question, to me, is this:

Is atheism REALLY that much on the rise? Or is it that those certain religious people who foam at the mouth over atheism are yelling louder than ever and with bigger voices?

Infinite_Loser

So I got to thinking about an earlier comment I made. Let's say an atheist's argument against the existence of God is as such: God doesn't exist because we can't prove Him and God doesn't exist because we can prove Him. Therefore, there are only two conditions under which an atheist's claim that God doesn't exist can be true.

1.) We have proof that God doesn't exist or
2.) We don't have proof that God doesn't exist.

Conversely, a theist's argument for the existence of God would be: God exists because we can prove Him and God exists because we can't prove him. Therefore, the two conditions under which this would be true are if

1.) We have proof that God exists or
2.) We don't have proof that God exists.

Since #1 in both circumstances is an impossibility in the scientific sense, we'll throw them out. Therefore, we're left with two arguments whose conclusions rely on the fact that neither can be proven. So, knowing this, I'm kinda' wondering how one argument can be considered more 'logical' than the other.



Enlighten me, please.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

Well as I've said there are two flavors of atheists, those that absolutely don't believe and those that can't disprove a negative. I call them weak and strong atheists, but other people have different meanings for those terms, so I'll have to make up new ones.

Super-Atheism: This is a belief system in which the existence of god is absolutely untrue. One knows totally that nothing beyond what we understand exists, and god does not exist without any margin of error. This makes up a very small amount of atheists, by my rough guess (not verifiable numbers) less than 5% of atheists could be considered a super-atheist.

Scientific Atheism: This is a belief system simply built upon reasonable deduction based on available evidence. Because no credible evidence exists to demonstrate the existence of god, and because there is evidence that god is fictitious, it's unreasonable to absolutely or partially believe in god. If one were to ask a scientific atheist if god exists, the reply would be something like "Almost certainly not." This is a vast majority of atheists.

ubertuber

I thought the primary position of atheists is that we don't have proof that God does exist. Did I misread your post or did you skip that one?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Challah

Bingo. The God of the Abrahamic religions has not been proven to be true or false, but given the available evidence it is reasonable to believe the latter. Claiming to "know" that God doesn't exist is as ridiculous as claiming to "know" that he does.

But really, what's more likely?
-The bible is the word of an omniscient, omnipotent being who created Heaven and Earth in less than a week.
-The bible, like every other book, is a human creation.

filtherton

There is nothing inherently irrational about theist ideas- they directly follow from the assumptions on which they are based. This is the very definition of rational. As far as logic goes- anyone who has taken a logic class, or has read much about the subject could tell you that the subject of a logical statement is practically irrelevant in the context of whether it is "logical" or not. All sentences are logical statements. The classic example would be something like, "If it rains tomorrow, the sky is purple." This statement is a logical statement, or two if you felt like breaking it up. If you wanted to evaluate it as such you could see that under specific circumstances(when it isn't raining) it is actually true.

The words "logic" and "rational" mean different things in the context of a discussion on atheism than they do in the everyday. The presumption in their use is that the theist isn't logical or rational or reasonable because they haven't arrived at the same conclusions about the nature of the universe as has the atheist. It actually has less to do with logic or rationality or reason and more to do with the differing assumptions each group has made about the nature of the beast.

Infinite_Loser

No. You didn't skip it. I interpreted that as "God doesn't exist because we can't prove Him".

Fair enough, I suppose.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

The beast being the universe? That's the thing, when it comes to matters which are outside the scope of religion, most religious people are happy to use deductive reasoning. The majority of atheists, myself included, simply apply that same deductive reasoning used in every day life to theism and find it lacking in evidence.

filtherton

It is possible to reason deductively that god exists.

Willravel

Can you demonstrate, please?

filtherton

Well, i'm not really a theist, so i don't know what they'd say. It would really be as simple as saying that you know god exists because you believe that nothing could exist without god. Or, you know, the whole irreducible complexity thing. Or anyone who thought that they had had a spiritual experience could deductively claim the existence of a god. Deductive reasoning doesn't always have to be credible from an atheistic scientific standpoint to be valid deductive reasoning.

Willravel

What I mean to say that when one is trying to discover if something is or isn't real from a logical standpoint, one cannot presuppose it's existence. Therefore, in order to reason as to whether god exists or not, one cannot assume god exists. If one does not assume god exists, then considering that god is the most complex and unlikely explanation for anything because he/she/it can break the rules of established science, god automatically becomes the least likely explanation.

As least that's how I see it.

filtherton

If you really think this, than you can't even discover if you are real from a logical standpoint.

I see what you're saying, but i don't know how you can claim that a god assumption is the most unlikely and complex explanation for anything. I took a chemistry class once, and let me tell you, the first day was more complex and unlikely than anything i was ever exposed to when i went to church. Little balls of charged mass? Electromagnetism? Orbitals? Shit man, try explaining that stuff to a 7 year old if you ever have one handy and you'll get an wonderful reminder of how absurd it all is. God is the simplest- and in many cases the least interesting- explanation possible. God is. There is no reason and there doesn't need to be, because god is unknowable- or something, i don't know.

Science is the most complex answer to anything- implicit in it is a never ending chain of questions. Things can only get more complex when one takes the scientific route.

I also don't think it necessarily makes sense to judge the unknown in the context of science when science doesn't necessarily have anything specific to say about the unknown other than that it is, well, unknown. Science is only relevant in reference to things that are (relatively) known.

Willravel

Simple to explain? Yes, god is simple to explain to a child who doesn't ask why until they get the whole picture. And if they do, you can just give them the "we weren't meant to understand" line. That line is why the god character is so complex. What would it take to create a universe, to create physics and biology? The answer must be more complex than what it resulted in. That's what I mean by complex.

It's what you said: "god is unknowable- or something, i don't know." That's the complexity, and also a trapping of theism. He's too complex for us to study or to try to explain, so why bother? That's intellectual suicide.

filtherton

That's a circular definition of complexity. Why must the answer be more complex than what it resulted in? God, at the very least, has always been a useful approximation for the things that lie beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

It doesn't have to be a matter of "we weren't meant to understand." It can also be a matter of, "It doesn't really matter either way, so believe whatever you want; as long as you trust yourself and keep an open mind you will be miles ahead of anyone who can only rigidly adhere to their own dogmatic perspective."

Not in any kind of meaningful way. Some of the greatest intellectuals in history were theists, many of them better scientists than you or i or dawkins. Many theists spend an inordinate amount of time refining their theological perspectives; theism can be a very intense intellectual activity.

Don't get me wrong. It is important to be able to understand and utilize a systematic way of evaluating the information provided by the world around you; this is science. It is also important to be able to make sense of things that can't be evaluated in the context of the scientific method. This is where science breaks down. I think that if there is any place where god could fit in, it would be here.

Infinite_Loser

If you can prove Him then God must exist. If you can't prove God exists then that only proves His nature, therefore meaning He must exist.

There ya' go!

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ustwo

I have to wonder if there is something inherent in logical beings where we are willing to accept that which really makes no sense as 'truth' as long as it supports or is required for our world view.

I do not require a god for my world view. Therefore I can be dispassionate and see just how silly all the effort people put into religion seems to be. Its like adults playing make believe when I see it.

But while someone can be logical about a world view that isn't shared, they seem to have problems when it comes to their own. A Christian can make fun of a neo-pagans beliefs, and there is plenty to make fun of there, yet not see the same silliness when they go to church to eat jewish zombie crackers.

But the same applies to more than just religion. There is a basic blindness people seem to have based on this world view, where probability and logic just can't soak in. I've often thought that for a lot of people, politics have replaced their religion, and perhaps thats exactly what it has. They get rid of their one wacky world view idea but then replace it with another one.

The question is can you look at your own world view and find your wacky spots? I'd like to think I can, but who knows, people have been willing to die for theirs so finding them might be beyond what a lot of people can do.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ubertuber

The only thing that does is destroy my belief that deduction and logic are useful tools for understanding the world.

It kind of reminds me of the paradox of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I'm honestly not saying that to make fun of anyone's sincerely held beliefs. The statements really do seem similar to me.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

When something runs against the laws of physics it must be more complex than physics if it's real. Also, as Dawkins has said, anything that knows what god knows and can do what god does must be complex. A designer must have at least as much information as what he designs. The maintainer must have power over that which is maintained. That's the complexity.
Asking someone not to question is telling them that understanding something isn't necessary. From a theistic framework, I guess it's fine (ignorance is bliss?), but for someone seeking answers (someone who would ask the "why" questions, it's like turing them away when they need help with answers.
Working within a framework is like playing in the sandbox. It's fun, and it helps you to understand the sandbox, but it ignores everything outside the sandbox. Everything else that may help you understand the sandbox better—knowing that the sand comes from a beach and the wood is from a forest, and that you can purchase a sandbox from places or build one yourself—is unattainable lest you work outside the framework. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with the framework per se, but the lack of perspective can ultimately be self defeating if you are honestly seeking a full knowledge.
I think the point of divergence lies above: "It is also important to be able to make sense of things that can't be evaluated in the context of the scientific method." Because there is no evidence to suggest anything exists that's beyond the scope of the scientific method, why would one try to make sense of anything by dropping it? I mean science can't break down. Mistakes in science break down all the time—hypothesis' that turn out to be wrong, for example—but science didn't break down. Human fallibility broke it down. Science is simply systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (www.dictionary.com). Science is the explanation of what is. Explanations that are wrong aren't science.

filtherton

Will, when something runs against the laws of physics, it means that the laws of physics are either wrong or that they are being misapplied. Complexity has nothing to do with it. And if dawkins really claimed that anything that knows what god know and can do what god does must be complex then he is making claims without evidence. The fact, and any scientist would tell you this, is that we aren't in a position to comment about the nature of a god, scientifically, because we have no clue what that nature is. Speculation is fine, but it would seem to me that if your whole perspective is based on the idea that unsubstantiated speculation is bad, as apparently yours is, you should probably avoid engaging in it.

So you're saying there's an important difference between telling someone that we don't know what happens when we die so they shouldn't believe in anything and telling them that as long as they don't deny the validity of things for which there is evidence then there's nothing wrong with believing whatever they want to believe when it comes to death? I guess. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and i'm not sure where ignorance comes in, since ignorance would seem to imply that you know something about the afterlife and the folks who don't see things your way are doing so out of ignorance.

"Full knowledge"? What does that mean? If you're going to define knowledge only as something that can only be derived through scientific means, then of course you're going to question the validity of any other kind of knowledge. I don't share your definition.

Will, i know what science is, and i know that it isn't present in a lot of the claims that you make about it. It can and will break down. There are many things that it is at a complete loss to explain, there are even some things it has proven itself to be unable to explain (heisenburg uncertainty) and, depending on how you look at godel's incompleteness theorem (hawking thought it a persuasive argument against the existence of a unified field theory), there have to be a lot of things that it will never be able to consistently account for.



*ahem* libertarianism *ahem*

Ustwo

Oh I know its down sides, but all governments are wacky

TBH I'm more libertarian lite.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Science is at a loss to explain nothing. People simply haven't discovered that science yet. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has been explained. Does that mean it's unexplainable? Of course not.

pig

i have to chime in at this point and say that i am quite convinced that 1. 'science,' or objective descriptive systems, will never fully explain the universe, how it got where it is and why it's there. 2. there is no proof that any scientific theory is 'true;' only that these theories are convenient and that they make predictions which are sufficiently close to our interpretations of what we observe such that we call them 'true.'

i hold that there are types of knowledge and experience which are cleanly outside the purview of science.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

filtherton

Depending on how i read that first sentence, we either agree or disgree.

1)If you mean that science can't explain "nothing" as in science is incapable of evaluating the things on which it cannot focus its analytical lens then we agree about this. What we don't agree on is whether it is prudent to make up your own explanations for things on which science has nothing to say. I say that it isn't a problem, it can sometimes be incredibly useful, and is generally to be encouraged as long as in the process one doesn't lose sight of the things that science does have to say.

If the above interpretation is correct, proceed to 3), otherwise, if you meant to say that there is nothing for which science is at a loss to explain, given enough time to figure it out, well...

2)Let me put it like this. To my knowledge there is nothing anywhere, ever, that should lead anyone to believe with any amount of confidence that science is capable of explaining everything. There is no proof for this belief. There isn't probability for this belief.

It is a hypothesis that is by definition completely untestable- you can't test something if it is impossible for you to test it. If there did exist some phenomena that was beyond the scope of scientific testing, you'd have no way of knowing because all the means by which you could find out would be useless from the get-go.

The fact that as a hypothesis it is completely untestable means that it is not a "scientific" idea, and i doubt you'll find many people in the who do a lot of science who are willing to go on record as believing that science is capable of explaining everything. Even if they were willing to claim this, the fact that they have no way of knowing whether the idea is even plausible means that they are committing an act of faith very akin to a belief in god.

A systematic way of making sense of the world(science) does not necessarily lead to some sort of macroscopic omniscience, where at some point everything to be known will be known and everything can be explained.

I'm finding interesting parallels between your insistence that science can explain everything and the insistence by some theists that heaven awaits them. Is there such a thing as salvation empiricism? Can you live comfortably in a world where some things are unknowable?


3) Whether the heisenburg uncertainty thing has been explained or not is irrelevant when you pay attention to what it says- namely that there is a limit to what we can know about a particle at any particular time- aka there are some things we can't know regardless of how much science we throw at them. This is scientific evidence for limitations on scientific knowledge.

I concur. A molecule is nothing more than a convenient concept. A horse is a pig that don't fly straight.