Slashdot Mirror

Maybe Atheist TV? http://atheists.org/AtheistTV

Yes, perhaps I was defining my set overly broadly. I am sure there are agnostics in that position though.

Of course it's also long been said that there are no atheists in foxholes... as a soldier and combat vet, I can't disprove that statement heh

I thought this was interesting: Agnosticism: The Basis for Atheism
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon

I guess it comes down to different people's different interpretations of the word "bigotry"

I'm going with the dictionary defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Neither American Atheists nor any major freethought/atheist group in the US is trying to take rights away from anyone, they want things like removing religion from publicly funded institutions (schools, courtrooms, etc) and to stop oppression of the non-religious.

Yes, but are they "obstinately and intolerantly devoted to their own prejudice and option" ?

A sign that says:

Christianity:
Sadistic God; Useless Savior
30,000+ versions of "Truth"
Pomotes Hate, Calls it "Love"
Atheism:
Simply Reasonable
Join American Atheists
https://atheists.org/sites/default/files/20120813FallBillboardsChristianity.jpg

Argue semantics all you like but that anything but an open minded message of tolerance. It doesn't promote the separation of church and state. It doesn't try to stop oppression of the non-religious. It just says: "Hey christians -- you're whole religion is just ignorant hypocrisy."

Who, but a bigot, would want to put that on a billboard?

I assume its these guys:

http://www.atheists.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists

People use anonymity on the internet to be complete pricks. It's easy to talk a pile of trash when you aren't accountable for your blathering.

Not always.

http://atheists.org/blog/2011/07/29/fox-news-facebook-page-on-911-cross-generates-death-threats-against-atheists

There is a giant atheist conference and party in Oakland, CA, this Saturday and Sunday. (Oakland is where the doomday prophet, Harold Camping, broadcasts from.)

http://www.atheists.org/events/Rapture_RAMS

Also, if you want to support the freethought movement and a summer camp for children in atheist families, you can click here and donate a little:

http://west.camp-quest.org/scripts/fundraising.pl?id=24

Actually atheism [merriam-webster.com] means that you disbelieve there is a god.

Look at definition 2a. And should I take them seriously when they still list (even as archaic) "wickedness" as a synonym?

Agnosticism [merriam-webster.com] means that you can find no justification for either belief or disbelief in a god.

Look at definition 1 there -- that's the "unknowable" definition I was talking about. Do you actually believe the only rational approach is to say that the question of a god's existence is unknowable? I certainly wouldn't be bold enough to commit to that without at least having a working definition of whichever god we're talking about.

My turn: Check Wikipedia, especially the first four sentences. Or better yet, look at the people who actually define themselves as atheists are saying about it.

By contrast, I know very few who positively assert that there is no God, or there are no gods, and they don't seem to have a problem with the word "atheist" describing those who just don't believe, rather than actively disbelieving. The only people who seem to have a problem are religious people who want to strawman us, or atheists who don't like the negative connotation and want some sort of a middle ground, so they self-identify as agnostics.

they should read this:
http://www.atheists.org/

It is a hobby if you go around talking about how great it is to not collect stamps, and join not collecting stamp clubs, and read Not Collecting Stamps Monthly. I get where that sentiment is coming from, I really do, and have to say I agree with it, but I don't think that it is always the case anymore.

Did Jesus exist?

The whole thing didn't just grow up out of nowhere. Christianity is an evolution/bastardisation of pagan sun worship and messiah cults and the Christianity we know today was created by Roman Emperor Constantine.

He's the one who decided which scriptures and gospels were canonical and would be included in the official holy book for Christianity which he declare to be the new state religion.

True enough, but be honest with yourself. If there's are books about not collecting stamps, organizations dedicated to not collecting stamps, and websites all about how to not collect stamps, and movements to preach the greatness of not collecting stamps, guess what not collecting stamps has become?

I'd reverse 2. and 3.

Coward.

University of Texas at Austin

1. So it wasn't heavily forested, figures.
2. So you can't disprove those, figures.
3. So you're a religious fanatic, figures.

Aubrey never saw the Holes

Regards,

Garry Denke
http://www.atheists.org/

University of Texas at Austin

1. So it wasn't heavily forested, figures.
2. So you're a religious fanatic, figures.
3. So you can't disprove those, figures.

Aubrey never saw the Holes

Regards,

Garry Denke
http://www.atheists.org/

So far no one has pointed out any contradictions for the Bible... tell me some. I do not know of any.

Ill still go google them, but it sounds like you had some in mind, id like to hear them.

I didn't have any particular ones in mind, just the general ones that people always point to in these online forums whenever the topic comes up.

Here's one list that somebody compiled:

I don't necessarily agree with everything on that list. I think he kinds of reaches for some, like different prophets lamenting that the righteous all die, and rejoicing that the righteous live. But others, like what Jesus said on the cross, or the entire creation story, are kinda important.

Other people have made their own lists, for example this one or these.

Or, you could just read through the thing with a critical eye and you'll find many more, I'm sure.

Actually, there's no evidence that Jesus was a historical figure really either, regardless of divine claims.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html

Actually, there's no evidence that Jesus was a historical figure really either, regardless of divine claims.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. This is Agnosticism. Atheism is the belief in the lack of god or gods.

That's not what agnosticism means, but regardless, atheism is the same as non-theism in the most inclusive sense. If you're not a theist, you're atheistic.

Also, atheism has no 'doctrines' that are explainable outside the context of theism. Without theistic religions and their descriptions of gods, atheism is completely undefinable.

Or here, for a better explanation: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

American Atheists are free to use whatever definition suits them, but they're plainly mistaken here - the above is actually a definition of philosophical naturalism, which implies atheism but also more than that alone.

Atheism is lack of belief in a god or gods. The etymology is "a" (without) "theism" (belief in a god or gods.) It is not a a "belief system", any more than lack of belief in Santa Claus is.

I hold no belief in a god or gods. This is not a belief system. There's no system involved.

Got it now? Or are these concepts too difficult for you?

First things first... my sig was supposed to be a joke. At least I found it funny :)

Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.

Every professed atheist I ever met refused to entertain the idea that God might be different than the precise definition of God he or she refused to believe in.

Well, congratulations, you have just met one who doesn't believe in any fairy, God or other made-up beings. I don't believe in Thor, Odin, Ra, Jehova or even the flying spaghetti monster.

This (non)belief was a core article of faith, and not available for reasoned discourse. Atheists quite often will insist noted pantheists (such as Abner Kneeland) are in fact atheists, and will not accept any proof to the contrary. If that's not religion, it's certainly got the features of a bad one, such as fanaticism and denial of reality.

I am not familiar with Abner Kneeland. I do agree that that atheists trying to make a convince for "this-and-this guy was really an atheist, though he never said so" is silly. Who cares? They are invariable dead anyway. Only the realllly silly claims to religion (like saying that Einstein was Christian... which he explicitly said he was not) can be a good thing to get out of the way :)

So being agnostic about whether there is life in the universe is probably wise. Being agnostic about the e.g. protestantic three-in-one superstition is silly, in my humble opinion. But, if you want to believe that, and I am not physically threatened for making fun of that, I am not forcing anyone.

Have a nice friday :D

I mean, once you decide you don't believe in a supreme being, what the hell do you need a magazine for?

Fact is, I have met people for whom Atheism IS a religion. They preach it with obsessive religious fervor, are strongly intolerant to any other religious belief, and are taken aback when you don't agree with their views. They may be all about "not believing", but in every other way, they behave like a religious fanatic.

Besides, atheism is not an organization

Sure it is... http://www.atheists.org/

"Christians are a hell of a lot safer for my existance than most muslim types."
Living in Texas I would say your existene is in vastly greater danger from Christians than from Muslims. Especially since you are an atheist type. Atheist types have a habit of turning up dead in Texas.

Zarqawi's Jordanian prison file:http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-do cex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf Afghanistani documents:http=http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_doc s.asp Iraqi documents:http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/product s-docex.htm an index to some of the documents:http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/product s-docex.htm#iraq Then there is this basic analysis that was done years ago:http://www.atheists.org/Islam/mohammedanism.ht ml more later

unbiased facts pertaining to this issue are found here: http://www.atheists.org/Islam/mohammedanism.html

Time for a little honesty! An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism http://www.atheists.org/Islam/mohammedanism.html

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus's alleged existence. Even the Bible was compiled long after he died, though its contributors may have lived during his alleged life - who knows.

He's a mythical character, like Zeus or Apollo, around whom there is a cycle of stories.

You linked to an overtly religious source, so I'll link to non-religious ones:

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist .html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Atheism theism is not "belief", it's "belief in God". I think anti belief would be something like aism, which is more along the lines of what Ferris Bueler is.

Athism covers those who are "anti belief in god", not those who are not believers. On the contrary, atheists are some of the most dogmatic religious people around, and one of the most annoying sects.

If you want the philosophy of "I really don't care or know" I think the term "agnostic" is what you are looking for. Atheists believe that they know for a fact that there is no God, which in my opinion is just blind faith.

>You can still acknowledge the other side and remain strong.

But if the other side knows it's being illogical and depends on your turning the other cheek, you'll end up nailed to a cross with a sword-hole in your side expecting a resurrection that will never come.*

Stay logical, stick to the facts, and do not give in to unproven assertions. That is strength.

* - okay, so there's a book that says that it worked for one guy, but it's been widely shown to be full of contradictions and other fantasies.

In order for me to believe that you would first have to convince me Jesus existed.

1. In the link you provided was some rambling stating Although what follows may fairly be interpreted to be a proof of the non-historicity of Jesus, it must be realized that the burden of proof does not rest upon the skeptic in this matter. As always is the case, the burden of proof weighs upon those who assert that some thing or some process exists. When the article is centered around jesus not existing and attemps to disprove any evidence put forth to date.
2. The above clearly defines that without proof of his existance, he didn't exist.

You reinforce this process of jesus not existing when you answer a claim that the idea of jesus not existing is reletivly new. You then further attemp to stipulate empirical evidence is needed to convince you of his existance.

1. In this example, well read for yourself.
   • The claims of jesus never existing as a person is a reletive new idea in that it dates back only a couple of centuries. What else happened at this time? Thories of evolution and the "scientific" comunity disputing creationism. Anti religious sediment amung people claiming to be too smart to belive in that witchcraft. You know were i'm, going with this.
     1. Precisely!!! The age of empiricism! Western man shedding the dark shackles of superstition. Have you listened to me at all? All I asked for was empirical evidence, because I am an empiricist.
   • This further enforces your position that you need empirical evidence in order to belive jesus existed as a person.

again, i find you saying

1. "Your statement (jesus was a jew) presupposes the existence of Jesus. In order for me to believe it you must first produce EMPIRICAL evidence of his existence, because I have never seen any. Lots of rational evidence, especially fallacious rational evidence, but no empirical evidence. I hate rationalism.
2. I will admit i left off were you state
   1. And I never said anything like "show me proof or it didn't happen." that is a classic straw man argument. directly before the previous quote

   But this is contradictory to what you have previously said and linked to in order to support your position. You are in fact saying that if someone (I) cannot show you EMPIRICAL evidence that jesus existed, you are not going to belive he did exist. Even though the majority of the human polulation admits he did exist as a person.

Maybe i am extreamly stupid and cannot follow you argument. In that case could you spell it out so the rest of us non-inteligent people can actualy understand it.

You see, your trying to interupt a common piece of history without any evidence or belivable alternative. Your claiming that because no one has shown you proof jesus existed as a person, he doesn't exist. I'm claming that because thier is others who support his existance as a person, he did in

I was once removed from sunday school when I told some students that Jesus was a jew.

I recently had to corect one of my nieces' teachers at school who instisted that there was only 26 amendments in the bill of rights. Evidently the 27th wasn't a concern because it was added in 1992 and she recieved her degree in '85.

The problem is, teachers that react badly to 'creationism' or the new oxymoron of 'intelligent design' get fired

I grew up in Lawrence, KS and graduated from Lawrence High School in 1989.

There was a rather 'brusque' teacher by the name of Mr. Roth. he taught biology.

in 1997 he was fired for berating a student who asked him why he didn't teach creationism. Reports vary but he probably reacted to the bating of a little shit of a student.

Mr. Roth was a teacher to be feared if you goofed off, but if you did your work he was a good, solid teacher. He was famous during my tenure for shooting any sleeping / dozing kid with a fire extinguisher.

It was a very sad day when a lifelong dedicated educator is terminated over this. It was at that point I knew my kids (who didn't even exist yet) wouldn't be going to the USD 497 school district.

Perhaps you are not aware that prayer in schools has caused major conflict in the past. Not only between Christians supporting prayer and atheists or other-religionists opposing it, but between different Christian sects. Consider the "Battle of Philadelphia", where a dispute over which Bible should be used in school Bible readings led to rioting and the burning of two Catholic churches.

Preventing students from praying may save lives. Religious folk are not to be trusted with the general welfare; they will always overlook it as they attend to their own special welfare.

This might be what he had in mind:

http://www.atheists.org/

Thanks to Madalyn Murray O'Hair atheists get to inspire the same warm fuzzies that Jerry Falwell inspires.

I also am going to take the opportunity to remind the Slashdot community that a good percentage of our founders were not fundamentalists, and emphatically supported the concept of separation of church and state. I also would like to share the fact that it has been a practice of late for the religious right to spread misconceptions on this topic.

Christian revisionism
Here or here about your founding fathers.
I suppose the formerly conservative supreme court is now liberal because they wont allow an Alabama judge to activily endorse the christian religion.

Other than the people who got shipped over in chains (african americans), starved out (americans of irish descent during the potato famine), were here before us (latinos/american indians), sent to serve out prison sentences, or just wanted a better life, I would hazard a guess and say very few came to the US exclusively because of religious regions.

I also am going to take the opportunity to remind the Slashdot community that a good percentage of our founders were not fundamentalists, and emphatically supported the concept of separation of church and state. I also would like to share the fact that it has been a practice of late for the religious right to spread misconceptions on this topic.

Christian revisionism
Here or here about your founding fathers.
I suppose the formerly conservative supreme court is now liberal because they wont allow an Alabama judge to activily endorse the christian religion.

Other than the people who got shipped over in chains (african americans), starved out (americans of irish descent during the potato famine), were here before us (latinos/american indians), sent to serve out prison sentences, or just wanted a better life, I would hazard a guess and say very few came to the US exclusively because of religious regions.

What else are geeks doing differently this Christmas?"

I celebrate the Winter Solstice you insensitive clod!

Atheism is the lack of belief in any higher power, not the belief in the lack of any higher power.

Your definition of agnosticism is correct however.

If you would like to educate yourself further, please take a look at the American Atheists website. You'll find this page to be especially informative.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any higher power, not the belief in the lack of any higher power.

Your definition of agnosticism is correct however.

If you would like to educate yourself further, please take a look at the American Atheists website. You'll find this page to be especially informative.

True. However, in most countries they don't approach 45% of the population.

Look, you can call white "black" all day, but that won't add a single spot. Atheism is not faith in non-existence of god, this is an explicit lack of religious belief. Let's be nice and not ascribe new meanings to this word. Check any dictionary for the definition. Atheism is not faith, it's lack of religious faith. No matter how many times people repeat the tired old "atheism is just another religion", this nonsense doesn't start making sense. Now that we are done with this, I can continue reading your post. :)

Even strong atheism has nothing to do with faith. It's not faith, it's rational belief, expectations that you have about reality based on evidence (or lack thereof). Having said that, I am definitely a "strong atheist", or whatever you like to call it.

My contention that most scientists are atheists doesn't lack power. CHECK THE FUCKING FACTS, FOR FUCK'S SAKE. There are probably hundreds of surveys that show the same thing. Scientists generally tend to not believe in gods, Nobel prize winners (in physics/medicine) tend to not believe in gods, and the higher your IQ is the less likely you are to believe in god. In the US National Academy of Science only 7 fucking percent believe in personal god.

Now I never claimed that my preference for atheists was based on any strong supportive evidence. I freely admit that it's just my assertion, that's what I think based on my worldview (and I may very well be wrong). Your arguments about decision making are very convincing and let me just reiterate that my claim was not intended as anything more than a personal opinion (alhtough one I hold dear to me).

But all that said, I honestly don't feel compelled to argue. With all respect that I have for you (and I do have some, as you are obviously somewhat intelligent and a professional in a relevant field), I just don't see a point in arguing with a religious (highly religious for that) guy. I understand very well the arguments for tolerance, dialog and stuff, but at some point I realised that it's basically crap. Religious people are morons (I know all about the defition, but the word has another meaning now, unlike "atheism", which you attempt to redefine) and that's basically it.

I am a very rational person, I was a winner of a national debate championship once, so believe me that I am being teared apart by this contradiction. On the one hand, I'd like to discuss this rationally, but on the other, I saw enough to know that it would be pointless. The only practical way to heal you from your delusion would be to use the very tools religious sects use. Incarceration, sleep deprivation, repetition, indoctrination, etc. Mild electric shocks may also help. After that it would be possible to start discussing it rationally.

There is a huge hole in your reasoning. Just because a principle makes you happier, doesn't mean it's true. There can be 100 principles contradicting each other, some of which may make you happier. It doesn't mean all of them are true (because only 1 can be). Furthermore, religious is used as a post-hoc justification for decent behaviour. You would be a happy and good person anyway, but because you are religious you argue that religion makes you happy and good. This is day-and-night different from the scientific method, as you must understand perfectly well (doublethink is invaluable to religions...).

I hope that was rational enough to you. I hope you will excuse the lack of decorum and the briefness of the argument, but as a person who believes (based on empirical evidence) that religious faith is bullshit and it's generally impossible to persuade religious people that it's so, I am not very compelled to waste my time doing just that.

I'm sorry, but don't know of all that many 'fundamentalist' atheists, at least not in the modern western world. I've noticed a lot of the time fights against things susch as school prayer are portrayed as being anti-religion, as you seem to in a later post. Students are not banned praying in school, and it's rediculous to argue otherwise. What *is* banned is for the school administration to promote religion, as they are publically owned. If you are Christain, you likely wouldn't be too pleased if you heard someone reading prayers out of the Quran over the loudspeakers, just an atheist wouldn't be happy to hear any prayers. The constitution demands that the state not promote religion, so *the state* can't. However, individuals, including students in public school, can.

As well, being an atheist assigns a huge stigma to a person in the eyes of many. Since many promote religion as being synonymous with morality, there is a implication that athiests are immoral. This is a totally unfair assumption, yet it along with bigotry to athiests is so pervasive it goes unquestioned.

You wouldn't happen to be an Atheist like me would you? BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS

I like this one,

"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Dirac, Faraday, Planck, Kelvin, Maxwell and Einstein beleived in God. So do I.

Much fewer scientists are religious -- if you compare to the general population.

It's an old observation that if you cherrypick examples from a large data set, you can get good statistics for any thesis. Of course, that is the reason it is considered less than intellectually honest...

Besides, "religious" is hardly a good description of Einstein. Also, Newton was a nut I wouldn't want to mention regarding anything but math... Ah never mind.

(The references are just Googles for things I read years ago and wanted pointers to. Original source is Nature.)

The Bible is truth, but not exhaustive truth.

No, the Bible is not truth, and this is easy enough to prove. For it to be truth, it could not contain a single contradiction or factual innaccuracy.

Here is a page which lists a number of contradictions in the Bible.

Note that even one would be enough to prove that the Bible is not completely true and therefore could not be the unadulterated word of God.

I am aware that Christians have a number of excuses for this (the word of God is perfect, but it was transcribed by imperfect humans, errors were introduced in translation, etc.) but the fact is that this must necessarily cast doubt on the accuracy of the entire work. If you are forced to admit that certain passages of the Bible are inaccurate, how can you know for certain that all of the other passages are accurate?

Most Physicists believe that God created the laws of physics ...

You keep telling yourself that... God boy. However only 7% of scientists believe in a personal god.

The company, based in Lindon, Utah, has claimed that parts of the Linux operating system, which is open-source software and requires no licence fee, has been copied from the Unix operating system. It started demanding licence fees from users of some versions of Linux, payments that potentially total-billions of dollars.

SCO has admitted that its action is designed to shore up sagging sales by wringing revenue out of its rights to Unix, an older operating system from which Linux was derived. SCO said it is able to pursue copyright-infringement charges after receiving registrations for its copyrights from the U.S. Copyright Office.

SCO Group is headed by CEO Darl McBride. David Boies and his fellow Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP lawyer Mark Heise are SCO's attorneys in this case, but the software company was represented in a court skirmish last week in Utah between SCO and IBM Corp. byDarl McBride's brother Kevin. Kevin McBride, according to West Legal Directory, has a private practice in nearby Park City, Utah, where he specializes in litigation and appeals, not corporate-contract or intellectual-property law.

Nice to see he's getting family involved. That reminds me...

I just saw the South Park episode about the mormon kid that moves into town (a couple weeks late, I know). Listening to the story about how the mormon church came about, I could not help but think about SCO's lawsuit.

One bit in particular that reminds me of this is when Mr. Harris's wife takes the translated "testament", locks it away, and asks for another translation that should be identical if it's real - so Joseph Smith gets all pissed off ("God" gets angry) and gives him another translation, but it's "not identical but on the same basic line."

More info about the origins of mormonism

Reading the above page only solidifed my view that mormon belief has at least something to do with the workings of SCO as of late.

In short, if and when the SCO code is revealed, check those modification dates! I'm damn sure they'll try to pull something like copying entire files out of the linux kernel, putting them into their code and then saying "See? They copied entire files from our UNIX code!"

let me direct you to atheists.org