Not to be outdone by Huckabee...

[Subyman]

Hmmm, I read the comments that Huckabee, et al made and I don't see where they specially blame "homosexuals" or whoever on the massacre. I see them saying the "state" of the country as a whole has influences on these events, but I'm not seeing the direct connection that people are trying to make. The WBC definitely had somethings to say lol.

Of course, if you don't believe in god then someone saying god is having influence on a nation that you believe is not on a religious path sounds crazy, but there are many people that believe in god and I do not believe they are crazy people. WBC certainly is though... BTW I am agnostic, but have respect for normal religious people.

 

[alzan]

If an all powerful deity exists then you don't have the knowledge to adequately critique its actions or non-actions.

The existence/non-existence of a deity all powerful or not can't be proven. My question was aimed at believers. And your answer if you're a believer, is a cop-out.

 

[Retro Rob]

If an all powerful deity exists then you don't have the knowledge to adequately critique its actions or non-actions.

Nor do you have the knowledge to adequately attribute actions or inactions to it.

LOL, this never had anything to do with the intervention, or lack thereof, of God anyway.

 

[alzan]

LOL, this never had anything to do with the intervention, or lack thereof, of God anyway.

Some of us realize that. The followers/fans of James Dobson, Bryan Fischer of the AFA and others apparently lap up what their rock stars say and fervently chant "amen". That is their reality and it's what the rest of the country has to deal with and counter-act.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think they have a percentage effect I'm just not sure of the percentage. It would vary depending in the religiosity of the individual hearing/seeing the comments. Even to some of the very religious the comments would ring hollow and untrue, said only to garner support from those listen to their shows and buy their DVDs and other "holy" merchandise.

I don't think it's a decline in religiosity so much as it is the other reason the article proposed; a greater willingness by individuals to identify as non-religious or agnostic/atheist.

According to the article, Atheists are grouping up, and are encouraged to speak out regarding their opinion regarding God, spear-headed by none other than Rich Dawk.

I will NOT be surpised to see in the next 20 years, a slew of indoctrinated childern being convinced "through reason and science" from birth that God isn't only not real, but dangerous and intellectually dishonest to believe in.

One from of control being swapped out for another....

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Well, if we're trading one form of thought control which can't be challenged by reason for one that can.....that's actually a pretty huge improvement.

 

[alzan]

According to the article, Atheists are grouping up, and are encouraged to speak out regarding their opinion regarding God, spear-headed by none other than Rich Dawk.

I will NOT be surpised to see in the next 20 years, a slew of indoctrinated childern being convinced "through reason and science" from birth that God isn't only not real, but dangerous and intellectually dishonest to believe in.

One from of control being swapped out for another....

There is no control being exerted despite what you may think or are being told; no other agnostic/atheist has control over me nor do I have any control over them. Whatever I may think of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al and their studies/research/discussions it has no bearing on my day to day life and how I view or interact with other people.

The same is not true of some religious people.

So there's more people willing to identify as agnostics/atheists, does that frighten or concern you? And if so, why?

Grouping up...LOL! Yeah man, you shoulda seen all the groovin and behoovin' goin' down at the Atheist Gig last weekend; Richard was wailing on the sitar, Sam beltin' out the vocals backed up by the Harmonic Agnostics.

Seriously, take a step back and think about how you worded your comment.

 

[Retro Rob]

There is no control being exerted despite what you may think or are being told; no other agnostic/atheist has control over me nor do I have any control over them. Whatever I may think of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al and their studies/research/discussions it has no bearing on my day to day life and how I view or interact with other people.

So, encouraging other atheist who rather wouldn't, for one reason or another, to voice their disblelief in god isn't a start of control?

Do you realize that organized religion operates/started the same way -- enouraging members to "voice" their belief in God?

I am NOT trying to compare religion to Atheists, however, I'm comparing humans to humans... and one thing I realize about humans generally, they love power and control.

So there's more people willing to identify as agnostics/atheists, does that frighten or concern you? And if so, why?

Here's this fear thing again, same from the gay marrigae thread. Again, what's to fear about them identifying themselves as non-religious or even atheist/agnostic? Fear that religion is somehow in the decline (something very obvious over the past decade or so)?

What I hate is how they come off as so "different" and use "thought and reason", when really they want followers or they wouldn't write books and come on programs to speak. They want followers. Power is in numbers. If no one "bought" what they were selling, they'd be powerless. Maybe you aren't one, but you're just one small representation of many more athiests who are also more gullible and weak-minded than you are (you aren't, just generally speaking to tie my point together).

Grouping up...LOL! Yeah man, you shoulda seen all the groovin and behoovin' goin' down at the Atheist Gig last weekend; Richard was wailing on the sitar, Sam beltin' out the vocals backed up by the Harmonic Agnostics.

Seriously, take a step back and think about how you worded your comment.

You step back and read the part about "American Atheist Groups".

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So, encouraging other atheist who rather wouldn't, for one reason or another, to voice their disblelief in god isn't a start of control?

Of course not, who would be bound by it? Atheism isn't a religion, no one is bound by words of any scripture nor are there preachers proclaiming that if we don't do as we're told by them we'll be punished.

Atheists have only one necessary thing in common, that we don't believe in God. We are not bound by any rules at all in how to behave as atheists.

You're mistaking Atheism for religion, it's not and Richard Dawkins isn't a leader of us Atheists either.

 

[buckshot24]

Nor do you have the knowledge to adequately attribute actions or inactions to it.

I wasn't.

The existence/non-existence of a deity all powerful or not can't be proven. My question was aimed at believers. And your answer if you're a believer, is a cop-out.

I don't think it's a cop out to say "I don't know". I don't think it's a cop out to point out that your mind (or mine) doesn't have the proper perspective or scope to be able to judge the actions or non-actions of such a proposed being legitimately.

 

[Retro Rob]

Of course not, who would be bound by it? Atheism isn't a religion, no one is bound by words of any scripture nor are there preachers proclaiming that if we don't do as we're told by them we'll be punished.

Atheists have only one necessary thing in common, that we don't believe in God. We are not bound by any rules at all in how to behave as atheists.

You're mistaking Atheism for religion, it's not and Richard Dawkins isn't a leader of us Atheists either.

Ok -- I will level with you, John. He isn't an Atheist leader, but I say this for two reasons:

1) He obviously is an opponent of religion, and is a best-selling Author promoting his ideas.

2) People are obviously interested or have bought in to what he's writing.

No, he isn't a leader as a pastor leads a church, but I say he IS in the fact that people like his ideas, and continue to buy into them.

Sort of like Nastordamus and his "followers". Admittedly, I don't know much about him, but what I do know is that people bought into his "prophecies", no matter how vague or specific they were or were not. Those were applealing to people's inate desire to learn the "end" of something.

I think that all it takes is someone to buy into what you're selling, then they pass it along down and inadvertedly recruit others. Then they're looking for more of your ideas, and more, and more... to the point to where they "follow" you.

I personally think that as Atheist numbers grow and in order for them to have a clear "voice", they would have to organize, and every organization has a leader/group of leaders.

 

[alzan]

So, encouraging other atheist who rather wouldn't, for one reason or another, to voice their disblelief in god isn't a start of control?

Do you realize that organized religion operates/started the same way -- enouraging members to "voice" their belief in God?

I am NOT trying to compare religion to Atheists, however, I'm comparing humans to humans... and one thing I realize about humans generally, they love power and control.


Here's this fear thing again, same from the gay marrigae thread. Again, what's to fear about them identifying themselves as non-religious or even atheist/agnostic? Fear that religion is somehow in the decline (something very obvious over the past decade or so)?

What I hate is how they come off as so "different" and use "thought and reason", when really they want followers or they wouldn't write books and come on programs to speak. They want followers. Power is in numbers. If no one "bought" what they were selling, they'd be powerless. Maybe you aren't one, but you're just one small representation of many more athiests who are also more gullible and weak-minded than you are (you aren't, just generally speaking to tie my point together).


You step back and read the part about "American Atheist Groups".

No, I don't think that encouraging other atheists to voice their thoughts about the lack of a supreme being is a start of control. No atheist/agnostic that I've ever had a conversation with has exhorted me to speak out on any subject. And I have doubts about just how many more atheists/agnostics are "gullible" and "weak-minded". After all using thought and reason all the time would tend to make a person more circumspect and discerning, would it not?

Yes I do realize that some organized religions operate/started the same way; not all groups who have their members speak about that which binds them together are seeking power and control.

Yes we love power, control, wealth, sex, etc. Usually more than one at a time. However I don't look at people who are disseminating information and opinion as trying to control me. If I went to one of their presentations or watched the numerous YouTube videos on past discussions/conferences it would be an opportunity for education and increase of knowledge.

Perhaps fear is not appropriate...how about overly concerned? 😉 Sorry, couldn't resist. But really, looking at your previous response:

According to the article, Atheists are grouping up, and are encouraged to speak out regarding their opinion regarding God, spear-headed by none other than Rich Dawk.

I will NOT be surpised to see in the next 20 years, a slew of indoctrinated childern being convinced "through reason and science" from birth that God isn't only not real, but dangerous and intellectually dishonest to believe in.

One from of control being swapped out for another....

there's definitely over-concern and a little fear with words like "spear-headed" and "dangerous" and the phrase "One form of control being swapped for another...". And in your next sentence "they come off as so 'different' and use 'thought and reason' ". They're not really different, they're human beings just as you and I and most Anandtech posters; there are a few that I have doubts about. And everyone can use thought and reason; they're not for some but not others to use.

You commented to JoS that Dawkins et al are best selling authors; with 270 million potential buyers that's really not tough to accomplish. Not to put down authors but I think the requirement of number of books sold to qualify as "best-selling" is low, although I could be wrong; it's happened at least once before.:😉

Will read about American Atheist Groups later, have to get the spaghetti noodles going for dinner.

Were you talking about the American Atheists group, started by Madelyn Murray-O'Hair or just American atheist groups in general?

 

[shira]

How would we know if he did? Maybe he stops 90% of these attacks.

Either humans have free will, or they don't. If humans have free will, then God is not allowed to intervene. If God intervenes, then the implication is that humans don't have free will. But if humans don't have free will, then they don't have free will to choose to believe or to not believe. And if humans don't have the freedom to choose, then all this talk about "abandoning God" is just nonsense, since humans do not have a say in the matter, and God is essentially causing humans to abandon God.

One has to be awfully irrational to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God.

 

[alzan]

I wasn't.

I don't think it's a cop out to say "I don't know". I don't think it's a cop out to point out that your mind (or mine) doesn't have the proper perspective or scope to be able to judge the actions or non-actions of such a proposed being legitimately.

According to one of the more popular religions we are created in it's deities image, so yes we do have the proper perspective and scope with which to judge its actions/non-actions legitimately.

 

[Retro Rob]

there's definitely over-concern and a little fear with words like "spear-headed" and "dangerous" and the phrase "One form of control being swapped for another...". And in your next sentence "they come off as so 'different' and use 'thought and reason' ". They're not really different, they're human beings just as you and I and most Anandtech posters; there are a few that I have doubts about. And everyone can use thought and reason; they're not for some but not others to use.

You commented to JoS that Dawkins et al are best selling authors; with 270 million potential buyers that's really not tough to accomplish. Not to put down authors but I think the requirement of number of books sold to qualify as "best-selling" is low, although I could be wrong; it's happened at least once before.:😉

I am not at all overly conerned. All I am pointing out is what I preceived as leaps and bounds that Atheists, some anyway, go through to show how they are so unlike their faith-based counter parts. So I think that they aren't so unlike believers in the fact they do organize, and do exchange thoughts, facts, whatever, and when possible (either through books, or speeches, or just everyday talk) spread what they "know" as truth. No, this isn't the case with them all, though. They don't go about this in an organized, campaign-esqe manner like religion does. However, they would like to point out why belieif in God isn't the way to go, and being quiet isn't going to accomplish that.

Personally, the biggest (and most fundamental difference) between us and them, is the belief and non-belief that God exist. Outside of that, I see no stark contrast between Atheists and believers.

 

[buckshot24]

According to one of the more popular religions we are created in it's deities image, so yes we do have the proper perspective and scope with which to judge its actions/non-actions legitimately.

One doesn't follow from the other.

 

[buckshot24]

Either humans have free will, or they don't. If humans have free will, then God is not allowed to intervene.

If God intervenes, then the implication is that humans don't have free will.

I'm not sure why God intervening occasionally makes everybody robots.

But if humans don't have free will, then they don't have free will to choose to believe or to not believe. And if humans don't have the freedom to choose, then all this talk about "abandoning God" is just nonsense, since humans do not have a say in the matter, and God is essentially causing humans to abandon God.

God intervening occasionally doesn't mean he intervenes in every decision. That being the case this part just doesn't work.

One has to be awfully irrational to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God.

I think your premise was pretty irrational.

 

[alzan]

I am not at all overly conerned. All I am pointing out is what I preceived as leaps and bounds that Atheists, some anyway, go through to show how they are so unlike their faith-based counter parts. So I think that they aren't so unlike believers in the fact they do organize, and do exchange thoughts, facts, whatever, and when possible (either through books, or speeches, or just everyday talk) spread what they "know" as truth. No, this isn't the case with them all, though. They don't go about this in an organized, campaign-esqe manner like religion does. However, they would like to point out why belieif in God isn't the way to go, and being quiet isn't going to accomplish that.

Personally, the biggest (and most fundamental difference) between us and them, is the belief and non-belief that God exist. Outside of that, I see no stark contrast between Atheists and believers.

Other than forums like these though I don't see a large growth in either than amount of individuals that identify as atheist/agnostic; or read/hear about membership increases of particular atheistic/agnostic groups.

If there's been x increase in the amount of people identifying themselves as atheist/agnostic has there been the same increase in the number joining like-minded groups? I don't have any numbers but I'll make a thoughtful and reasoned guess and say that there hasn't been.

Belief in a deity or deities works for some and not for others. I have no problem with most religious people; if they get warm fuzzies from believing that G-d's in his heaven and all is right with the world that's fine with me. Whatever floats your boat. It's the ones in public that I personally can't stand, the one's who invade my personal share of the universe and the ones I've known for years that just won't accept that I left the church and am perfectly content with that decision.

 

[alzan]

One doesn't follow from the other.

I guess that all depends on one's definition of the word "image"

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Ok -- I will level with you, John. He isn't an Atheist leader, but I say this for two reasons:

1) He obviously is an opponent of religion, and is a best-selling Author promoting his ideas.

2) People are obviously interested or have bought in to what he's writing.

Have you ever read any of his books? Do you know what his best sellers actually contain? Can you think of many reasons one might buy his books?

No, he isn't a leader as a pastor leads a church, but I say he IS in the fact that people like his ideas, and continue to buy into them.

Sort of like Nastordamus and his "followers". Admittedly, I don't know much about him, but what I do know is that people bought into his "prophecies", no matter how vague or specific they were or were not. Those were applealing to people's inate desire to learn the "end" of something.

Why would you make that analogy when it ONLY makes sense to compare a religious leader to Nostradamus with his prophecies and conspiracy theories?

I think that all it takes is someone to buy into what you're selling, then they pass it along down and inadvertedly recruit others. Then they're looking for more of your ideas, and more, and more... to the point to where they "follow" you.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is supposedly one of Dawkins "followers", is he then an atheist? In reality no one "recruits" others by recommending a book about evolutionary biology.

I personally think that as Atheist numbers grow and in order for them to have a clear "voice", they would have to organize, and every organization has a leader/group of leaders.

This is silly, it's like the hair club for men. A force to be reckoned with i'm sure...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm not sure why God intervening occasionally makes everybody robots.

God intervening occasionally doesn't mean he intervenes in every decision. That being the case this part just doesn't work.

I think your premise was pretty irrational.

You know what i think is irrational? Christians claims.

Let's see what kind of things god is claimed to intervene in and instances where he obviously didn't intervene, shall we?

6 Million Jews exterminated, God: "yeah, i know they are my chosen people and all but i just can't be bothered, besides, Hitler has a valid point they did kill my son."

2500 children die each day from starvation in Africa, God: "Fuck them, they should have had the sense to be born in a better place"

Random sports team wins and a religious player goes "GOD helped me accomplish this", God: "ya, i watch sports and have faviourites"

Random junkie almost dies from his abuse, claims God saved him, God: "junkies are my homies and always good people so i throw one of them a bone every now and then"

And for some reason people not only buy this but they are also proclaiming that an arsehole behaving like that is a good guy?

 

[buckshot24]

You know what i think is irrational? Christians claims.

Congratulations.

Let's see what kind of things god is claimed to intervene in and instances where he obviously didn't intervene, shall we?

-snip-

And for some reason people not only buy this but they are also proclaiming that an arsehole behaving like that is a good guy?

I'm sorry you don't like it but your opinion isn't really what is important. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you have the credentials to determine whether God is an "arsehole" in any meaningful way. That being said you can make any determination you want no matter how pitiful the amount of information that you have, it just doesn't mean a thing to anybody else.

 

[Retro Rob]

Have you ever read any of his books? Do you know what his best sellers actually contain? Can you think of many reasons one might buy his books?

I am sure Dawkins isn't an anti-religious idiot. I know he takes a scientifc view on things.

Why would you make that analogy when it ONLY makes sense to compare a religious leader to Nostradamus with his prophecies and conspiracy theories?

I guess you're right about that - I was making a general comparison. But it does seem more geared toward religious leaders.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is supposedly one of Dawkins "followers", is he then an atheist?

I wouldn't be surpised. He thinks Evolution is fully compatible with Christianity, but that the creation account shouldn't be taught along side evolution. :\

Each to their own...:| .... won't get an argument from me.

 

[buckshot24]

I guess that all depends on one's definition of the word "image"

Historically it hasn't meant what it needs to mean for you to have a valid point.

 

[buckshot24]

I am sure Dawkins isn't an anti-religious idiot. I know he takes a scientifc view on things.

Dawkins shouldn't write about religion. It's obviously outside of his expertise. I'm not sure why anybody would care what he has to say on the subject.