 |
|
|
|
|
July 18th, 2013
03:14 PM ET
`Six Types of Atheists' study wakes a sleeping giantBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - They were trying to prove a simple point: That nonbelievers are a bigger and more diverse group than previously imagined. "We sort of woke a sleeping giant," says Christopher F. Silver, a researcher at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. "We're a bit overwhelmed actually." Silver and his project manager, Thomas Coleman, recently released a study proposing six different types of nonbelievers - from strident atheists to people who observe religious rituals while doubting the divine. The study clearly struck a chord, particularly among triumphal atheists and uneasy believers. Articles appeared in in Polish, German, Russian and Portuguese, Silver said. Here on CNN.com, our story "Behold, the Six Types of Atheists" garnered about 3.14 gazillion hits and thousands of comments. Half the fun seemed to lie in atheists applying the categories to themselves, kind of like a personality test. "I guess I'm a 1-2-4 atheist," ran a typical comment. Other commenters questioned the study's categories, methods, and even the religious beliefs of its authors. Silver and Coleman agreed to answer our readers' questions via email from Tennessee. Some of their answers have been edited for length and clarity. Q: Several readers asked how you came up with your six categories of atheists? A: In a sense we let the participants inform our theory. The categories were devised from a series of 59 interviews conducted with people nationwide who don’t believe in God. Participants were asked to define various terms of nonbelief as well as their own religious views. We also asked participants to tell us their stories and how their religious views have changed over time. We found the most commonly repeated stories and descriptions and formed them into types. We then used those types in the survey portion of the project. Each of the six categories proved to be statistically unique in a wide array of psychological measures. Q: @PaulTK asks: Are atheists limited to the six categories your study proposes? A: We suspect that further research exploring people who don't believe in God will certainly expand the number of categories and fill in more details about the six we've named. For example, we found that the Intellectual Academic Atheist type may produce a 7th type reflecting those who are more "philosophically orientated" versus those who are more "scientifically orientated." Our study also gives some evidence that individuals may not believe in God but still identify with religion or spirituality in some way. Q: @JessBertapelle asks: Can people fit into more than one category? A: The typology of nonbelief is fluid. Based on our interviews, we suspect people transverse the various types over the course of their lives. Since we did not conduct a longitudinal design (a study conducted over time tracking the same people) we are unable to validate this assumption. For those of you who found yourselves agreeing with multiple positions, you may find characteristics that you identify with in all types but there is likely one type which is your preference. Q: @Melissa asks: Why isn't there a category for "closet atheists"? A: This is an excellent question. Many of our interviews were done in strict confidence where the participant’s own parents, spouses, or children had no idea they were participating in the study. One participant hid in the back of her closet because she did not want her parents to discover she is an atheist. But while there were plenty of “closeted” participants, they didn't agree in how they describe their religious views. That is, they ranged across a variety of our six types. Q: stew4248 asks: How is this any different than religious divisiveness? A: There is vast diversity among religious believers, but it's unclear if such diversity exists within nonbelief. We do know that the Antitheist category has much in common with religious fundamentalism. Likewise the Intellectual atheism/Agnosticism type has a lot in common with intellectual theology, although they are clearly not the same. Q: How did you find the participants for the study? Participants were recruited through nonbelief communities across the country. They were recruited face-to-face, through snowball sampling (participants sharing the study with friends), and through the Internet. Project manager Thomas J. Coleman III is well known in the atheist community because he is suing the Hamilton County (Tennessee) Commission for their involvement in divisive sectarian prayer at meetings. His reputation helped locate “closeted” atheists to participate. The regional breakdown of participants is presented on the project website. Q: A number of readers have also asked about your own religious affiliations, if you don't mind. Christopher F. Silver answers: I was born and raised in the rural South to a deeply religious Methodist family. In my hometown everyone was Christian. As was the case for many in our study, during college I was introduced to people from different cultures and ideologies. I was interested in studying different faith traditions and why people believe. In many respects, research for this was a selfish enterprise for me. There is nothing more transformative than sitting with someone as they share their life story with you. Today I consider myself an agnostic in the real philosophical sense. The more I learn, the more I recognize the extensiveness of my ignorance. Thomas J Coleman III answers: My mother has been active in the Methodist church as a choir member and pianist for most of her life. My grandparents were very active in the church and went every Sunday. Growing up, I would often go as well. But for me, “religion” was always something that other people did. I prefer to identify as a secular humanist. Silver and Coleman would like to point out that their study was supported and conducted in collaboration with the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Department of Psychology and the Doctorate in Learning and Leadership. soundoff (4,594 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next »
« Previous entrySorry, retweeting the pope won't get you out of hell
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
I don't believe in collection plates.
Another biased example. Here is a quote from the article: "We suspect that further research exploring people who don't believe in God..." It's not just the Abrahamic deity we don't believe in. I question that an atheist who has such bias is really an atheist (their beating around the bush answers to the last question are disingenuous too), because they clearly still have a preference in deities and fear it enough to capitalize a non-proper noun.
The correct thing to say is: "We suspect that further research exploring people who don't believe in any gods..."
Agreed it was poor wording.
I'm no astrophysicist so when the experts say the Earth is 150 million km from the sun and that the speed of light is 299792.458 km/s, I take them at their word. They are witnesses to these truths. They seem sincere and have credentials. When the same scientists speak about God, they are no longer speaking as a scientist but as a philosopher, a theologian. The scientists have witnessed to what they know, and Jesus has witnessed to the things he knows to be true.
Disbelieving a bunch of credible evidence and disbelieving a bunch of hokum are two different forms of disbelief.
I've never measured the speed of light. Some scientist did and told others. I learned about it in junior high school. Don't think my school teacher ever measured the speed of light. Actually, come to think of it everything I believe about science has been taught to me by people that probably never quantified or personally experimentally verified the information they were teaching. Not everyone can measure and experiment on everything. The point is, scientists witness to what they know, and I take them at their word when it comes to science. Speaking about the things of God is not in the realm of science. Of course as a person of faith I can simply say "this is the way God chose to design the universe."
The difference is you COULD measure the speed of light yourself to verify. You don't have to take "the scientists" by their word alone. There's no way for you to verify your deity.
It would be impossible and impractical to personally verify every scientific fact that I've been taught. Besides that, many people simply would not have the mathematical skill or ability to verify many of these truths. Are they stupid to trust these scientists? Of course not. Man has an intellect, the ability to reason, and a will to choose. Man has immaterial qualities that are beyond pure physical biology. For Jesus to witness to this truth and to believe him is not stupid either.
Pure science is observable only, anything beyond id theory or faith. The statements of millions of years old is beyond observable science it is all theory. No doubt that the scientists are of good repute, but the actual records only go so far, everything else is a calculation based on assumptions. So then, we are at a place to choose which theory or faith to believe in. The question lies in how do you make that choice. Is it based on relative truth and convenience of self or a single standard of truth whether it's to our convenience or not.
Mark,
" Jesus has witnessed to the things he knows to be true."
1. Did such a person really "witness", or was that just the writings of first century evangelists?
2. Even if such a person existed and said what they said he said, did he really *know* those things?
3. Why would a real smart god leave such poor, unverifiable evidence of his visit to Earth?
The Buddha taught not to let the string of a bow go to taut, not too loose. Why not try the middle ground of Agnostic belief? You don't have to believe in a god, nor do you have to hate those that do....
Sure. Get your lunatic fringe out of my kids schools, out of my government, out of my bedroom and away from my wifes reproductive organs and we can talk.
Until then this id Fargin War.
You must have misread his post. He wasn't talking about religion.
Agnostics aren't in a middle-ground and it's not a belief.
Gnostic means knowledge, not belief. Most atheists are agnostics because they don't claim to know there is no god. And if you're an agnostic that doesn't believe in god... you're an atheist.
The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
And what in the world makes you think atheists have to hate believers? You don't seem to understand the terms and what they mean. Do some more research... you may find out how silly your comment is.
And, quoting Buddha doesn't mean anything. There are a lot of things to be very "taught" about; seperation of church and state, civil rights, women's rights, scientific discovery, environmental issues, ect. All of these have huge enemies in the theistic community. Don't sugar-coat it.
There are anger management classes in your area...I'm sure.
The only truly rational belief system is agnosticism. An agnostic says that he doesn't know the unknowable. That's rational. Atheists and believers are both equally irrational, but irrational, crazy, and incorrect are three very different things. There is to be no shame in the irrational. Being irrational is part of human nature. And when dealing with the matter of God, any definitive answer that a person comes up with will not be based on reason, but more by a gut feeling. "I don't see anything, so it's not there" and "I don't see anything, but it's there because revelation told me it was" are both equally irrational statements. What I'm trying to say is that atheists and believers should get along, because whether or not we want to admit it, we are both living in irrational ways, and we realize that absolute rationality is not all it is cracked up to be.
Actually, the ONLY TRUE belief system is that of the Idonnoist.....
Nobody on this planet knows the TRUTH, and that is a FACT.
We are all guessing, so anybody who want to join my religion and church of Idonoism, please feel free....
you got it !! sign me up !
Funny that we posted at the same time with the same idea!
I agree that atheism is not purely rational and I embrace it. Art, literature, etc are also not fully rational. Pure reason is not satisfying for me, so I extend to believing there is no god. I see beauty in that.
Agnostics, being that they do not currently believe in a deity, also count as atheists. That's all it takes to be an atheist – current lack of belief in any of the proposed deities thus far. The two are not mutually exclusive. Look at the root words. Gnosticism is about knowledge, theism is about belief. Place an A in front and you have the lack of knowledge and the lack of belief. Mosts atheists are agnostic, and most agnostics are atheist... since we neither believe nor do we have knowledge of the plausibility of one of the proposed deities being real. I say most because some Agnostics are Theists, in that, they admit they don't know for sure, but they believe in a particular deity anyway, just in case.
Nice post, Mark. As a fellow agnostic, I confess to having some bias in your favor. My friends often accuse me of intellectual dishonesty by wearing the agnostic label, though. In that, the inability to know anything can be sort of a cop out. They tell me that, if I walk like a duck, I'm a duck. In other words, if my assessment of evidence leads me to be unable to conclude in the supernatural, then a disbelief in it should be the default. It's the whole teacup in space argument. Is there a teacup flying around in orbit, somehow evading our ability to perceive it? Maybe. But just because something MIGHT exist, doesn't necessarily mean that we have to suspend our judgement on what is MOST LIKELY to exist (or not). In short, I may be an agnostic in the purely categorical sense. But I'm an atheist in the functional sense.
You are technically correct – no one really knows anything with absolute 100% certainty. Everything you think you know could just be one giant dream and all untrue. However, we use the word "know" when we are extremely certain of something, beyond any realistically possible doubt. In that sence, atheists are able to say they know there is no god.
Any atheist who says "I don't believe in God" instead of "I don't believe in any gods" (such as the writers of this article) is a poor example in the same league of SE Cupp.
Except that religion evolved from superstition; superstition which "explained" the random and apparently capricious life of humans – thunder was a sign that the gods were angry, an eclipse was another sign, etc. We understand thunder, eclipses, weather patterns that affect our food etc. We no longer believe that evil spirits cause disease, etc. Would we believe in a god if we had this knowledge then? While none of us know if there is a god, atheism seems much more logical.
The study and the resulting clamor really is interesting. The authors spoke of closeted atheists of which I am one among a very religious community. It's sort of like being gay in the 1950s. One wonders if we unbelievers will come out of the closet to join the rest of the human race someday. Maybe atheists will be able to get married and file jointly.
So true
Being outed as a rejecter of Christ has gotten people killed, beaten, fired, harassed and tormented on numerous occasions in this great country of ours
We are the last great repressed group, but we have FINALLY begun the revolution.
I find this very interesting, I think most of us atheists were closeted at one point or another. Richard Dawkins actually made the same correlation in an interview stating that being an atheist today was akin to what being gay meant years ago. It wasn't something you brought up at dinner parties for sure. I wish you the best and hope you "come out of the closet" soon, good luck!
I also have been reserved about my non belief, I am 64 and only now being more open.
Dr. Dawkins book was most fascinating and enlightening. I'm not likely to start a fight at the dinner table or other social gatherings but will not shy away when that moment comes. It becomes pretty tiresome to get preached at by the true believers after a few decades. Where is the evidence?
Sweet! I got quoted in a CNN Article. My life is complete.
'"I guess I'm a 1-2-4 atheist," ran a typical comment.'
Congrats !
It's a great honor!
The Badger has been elevated!
I too have been quoted (Twice) but only when I pretend to be tolerant!
Have a beer with da prez. Then we can track you. We da force.
get it on hardcopy !
Ah yes....yet another "Atheist" article on CNN. Let the hate spewing venom between the Christians and Atheists begin! Didn't even bother to read the article this time, as I know the ensuing acrimonious comments are what is the real attraction. (Yawn)....I think I'll pass on reading it all this time.
It is funny how you have time to write a comment when you state that it is just another way to annoy whoever. Seems to me you just wrote this comment to initiate some angry response.
@ What is going on? I don't NEED to initiate angry responses. That was my point.....this whole blog is nothing but angry responses and arguments based on the topic. Do you really think even ONE person is going to be swayed to change their beliefs here? Hell, no! If you enjoy people slinging insults and name-calling, then read on.
With the picture being the same, my guess is half the posters don't know its a new article!
CNN knows what the formula is to get more hits on an article. Write an article about an article that got umpteen thousand hits.
Pretty lazy journalism if you think about it.
Where you gonna run to
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Oh... along that day
If you run to the sea
The sea will be boiling
If you run to the sea
The sea will be boiling
If you run to the sea
The sea will be boiling
Oh... along that day
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Oh... along that day
If you run to the rocks
The rocks will be melting
If you run to the rocks
The rocks will be melting
If you run to the rocks
The rocks will be melting
Oh... along that day
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Tell me downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Oh... along that day
And if you make your bed in hell
I will be there
Make your bed in hell
I will be there
I said, make your bed in hell
I will be there
Oh... along that day
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Tell me downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Oh... along that day
If you run to the rocks
The rocks will be melting
If you run to the rocks
The rocks will be melting
If you run to the rocks
The rocks will be melting
Oh... along that day
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Downpressor man
Where you gonna run to
Oh... along that day
Gonna run to the rocks, but the rocks will be melting,
gonna run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting.
Gonna run to the rocks, but the rocks will be melting,
I said, "Oh" along that way, way
Way, way.
Downpressor man, where you gonna run to,
Downpressor man, where you gonna run to.
Downpressor man, where you gonna run to,
Oh along that way Way. Way, way
I'm gonna run to the sea, but the sea will be boiling,
when you run to the sea, but the sea will be boiling.
When you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling,
I said "oh" along that way.
I'm gonna run to the lord, begging him for mercy.
Gonna run to Jah, begging him to hide you.
You're gonna run to the lord, begging him for mercy,
I said "oh" along that way.
Perhaps some Pips, or a horn section might have helped, but alas, do NOT invest much in hopes for a contract.
In a gadda da vida, baby
(In the Garden of Eden)
In a gadda da vida, honey
Don't you know that I'm lovin' you
Oh, won't you come with me
And take my hand
Oh, won't you come with me
And walk this land
Please take my hand
In a gadda da vida, honey
Don't you know that I'm lovin' you
In a gadda da vida, baby
Don't you know that I'll always be true
Oh, won't you come with me
And take my hand
Oh, won't you come with me
And walk this land
Please take my hand
In a gadda da vida, honey
Don't you know that I'm lovin' you
In a gadda da vida, baby
Don't you know that I'll always be true
Oh, won't you come with me
And take my hand
Oh, won't you come with me
And walk this land
Please take my hand
In a gadda da vida, baby
(In the Garden of Eden)
In a gadda da vida, honey
Don't you know that I'm lovin' you
Oh, won't you come with me
And take my hand
Oh, won't you come with me
And walk this land
Please take my hand
That drum solo is WAY better than the Sermon On The Mount!!!
copy that?
Daniel Burke – CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
you copy? lol
you guys are still trying to figure out if god is real? waste of time. just live and make yourself happy.
amen!
"In the Beginning there was the Word and the Word was God and the Words were with God and of God and about God and God's Sons."
I believe in God of the Creations made Celestially and the establishments of each and every evolved creations manifested upon the celestial domains... You need not believe...
I am satisfied beyond doubts that God's first begotten son was with God from Celestial Creations beginning moments to the ending ways of evolved creations manifestations upon any earthen world capable to bring forth life and sustain life in the abundances... You need not be satisfied...
I cherish the wisdom of Christ Jesus despite our Christian inadequacies to render decisively upon others doubts... You need not cherish Christ's wisdom...
For it is a matter of being proud that many prides of people endure their foolish miseries and infidel jealousies hell-bent against any and all of religiously endearing devotions. It is not our wills to be done but God's will to become of our wills that many prideful people are forcibly against. Love is God's conquering force over God's people and those who despise and hate God's chosen by Godly loving kindness will He allow the unloving nurtured natures of the prideful to remain...
Typical religious claptrap. Not only do you have no evidence anything you said is true, you ignore the fact that there are followers of hundreds of religions who are every bit as convinced what they believe is true as you are convince what you believe is true.
Lionly skytag...
Did I condemn you as you seem to condemn me and my Words? I know you not skytag and am incensed by your verbal gluttonies which nothing good can be assessed... May you someday find peaceful bliss and the loves from those who prop you up in steadfast ways...
For you see skytag, I have found God's peaceful treasures and no will from anyone who denies me my Words can uproot me... Antagonizing issues like yours languish others who like you are feebly orientated to conjuring upsets and attempts to pull the wagons wheels apart. Still though skytag, I see your blatant pompous lingering ways as an illness of one's mentally deficient growth rings. Time is on your side skytag... Use it evermore wisely... and harken not in bitterness betrayals...
Uh, who was there to listen to said word?
NOBODY!
So how do you know there was a word?
Because you are GUESSING!!
Brotherly Baal,
Though the Word now becomes flesh, the fleshly become unaware of their own understanding ways... For as one sees one does nary understand yet as one thinks one dares to know things and while one and all beget themselves they become set apart and distanced from each others ways. For God and all God's families die as it is so written in within the book of Genesis Baal...
CLEANUP IN AISLE 3!
Somebody's brains fell out.
RAOL !
Please, no more declarations that we cannot prove there is no god. This is statement is both true and trivial. We have not yet explored the entire universe, and for all we know there could be a planet out there with alien life resembling unicorns. Therefore we cannot even prove that there are no unicorns, or dragons, or fairies, or anything. We cannot prove that there is no X, where X is anything imaginable or beyond imagination.
However, we can say that there is no reason to believe in X (in unicorns, in dragons, in fairies, or in god). And as long as there is no reason to believe we should not believe – otherwise we'd have to seriously consider every random proposal in so large and mysterious a universe.
And absence of evidence really is evidence of absence – that's the entire reason why practically no one believes in unicorns, and it is perfectly legitimate reasoning.
Believers aren't interested in legitimate reasoning or finding the truth. They only care about maintaining their beliefs. That's why they resort to so many logical fallacies and truly idiotic arguments. Better to look stupid than face reality.
Then what are you doin' on a belief blog?? Are you nutzo??
thank you Mark!
Science believes in unicorns; they just evolved out of existence like A&A's. Wars are like that.
'Absence of evidence is evidence of absence' i think is a good point however i think there are elements of history to consider and it takes time to do so. How much time are people willing to take to consider the historical evidence of the bible, for example, before making a decision, as opposed to boldly voicing a stance against something that interferes with a self-desire, an opinion or relative truth. Everything is a choice and all are free to choose, but all choices have consequences and results. What if the evidence for faith is in the history of the Bible and it points to truth? I think it may be worth spending the time to do so since life depends on it. This comes from a former skeptic that tries to question everything, but found truth in the works, deeds and words of Christ.
The Greek myths are not evidence of Heracles.
The Legend of King Arthur is not evidence of Merlin.
The Epic of Beowulf is not evidence of Grendel.
The American Folk Tradition is not evidence of Paul Bunyan.
The Bible is not evidence of Jesus.
The miracles happened ... in the story. The prophecies were fulfilled ... in the story. The character was emotionally appealing and morally correct ... in the story. Get out of your story.
Correct on those counts, but a difference is that the verifiable authors and their writings of the old testament containing prophecies which were then witnessed hundreds of years later to the letter gives us room to consider its authenticity. The message of the old testament and new are the same, however, written over a span of thousands of years, by many different authors in several different places. Very much unlike the myths of the greek or nordic tales.
A tiresome lie, MJ: Jesus of Nazareth being from Bethlehem, and not Nazareth, is hopefully enough of a clue to start some doubt. It is no more impressive than a prophecy in ancient Hindu scripture being 'fulfilled' by some modern charlatan in India. They've had many of those recently. The Star Trek universe has been expanded by many authors into a quasi-consistent universe, but there's no amount of internal consistency from different authors writing over many decades able to rescue the story from fiction. It is permanently fiction.
Jesus, or whoever spoke/wrote his words, ordered his followers to abandon their families and their wealth, on pain of infinite torture. This is enough to put him in the same category as David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, L.Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, etc. He could have been a con man, a kidnapper, a pedophile, and/or a stoker of violence like these other men. Imagine how weird and wrong a history written by their followers would be.
Levi well stated... I've been saying this for year.. show me the evidence and I'm on board!! (is that too much to ask?)
Diggitle- Its silly when people try to act like the answer is right in front of us. If God is so all-knowing and all-powerful, you would think proving his/her existence would be kind of inconsequential! Most atheist I know do not even claim to 'know' anything.. and thats what the utlra religous can't grasp, the idea that we really dont 'know' anything. Doubt can be a strong motivator.
Are you REALLY an atheist... take the atheist test:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html
No thanks! I know logically, scientifically and reasonably that an atheist didn't create all things we see, God did...
Which one?
Which God is the creator? Was it the God Yahweh who spoke to Moses but hasn’t yet sent the Messiah, or God Jesus who claimed to be one with his Father, or the God Allah who spoke to Mohamed the last prophet, or the God who spoke to Luther and said Catholics got it wrong, or the God who spoke to Joseph Smith, or one of the Gods with whom a thousand other people have claimed to have had a revelation?
These seem like many different Gods to me. So which one created the world? Or maybe it was one of the many Hindu Gods. Why limit it to one? Why does the world have to be created? Maybe it just always is – like Jesus claimed “I am”. A world with no beginning and no end.
How does one select which creation story is true since they are all different? Every religion brings out their sacred books, prophets, traditions, revelations, miracles, and authorities. None agree.
The God that spoke to Moses and Jesus and Muhammed were the same God. If you are going to insult a theology, get the details right. And Luther never claimed to have any divine revelation. Joseph Smith was contacted by an angel, not God. Not saying that any of this is true, but get your theology straight. You should have said "God who talked to Moses" and "Vishnu."
You're right—logic, science and reason all lead one to believe that an atheist didn't create everything. Bravo. They also lead one to believe that whichever version of a fairytale sky-god you've made your deity of choice didn't either.
I'm not aware of any atheist who claims to have created everything. Can you identify the one you are talking about?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Banana_fallacy
Sorry. Bananas as we know them were engineered by HUMANS. Try again please.
Total BS – really, the banana as proof of an ID? This assumes the modern cultivated (and modified) banana and not the original naturally occurring banana. On top of that, primates can see the color red because it is the color of ripe fruit – yet the banana is yellow (the modern version) when ripe. I vacation in the tropics, and have had numerous different types of bananas and plantains, and let me tell you, some of them are not at all easy to get into.
This site is technically correct – the modern banana WAS designed – by man.
Linking to something from Ray Comfort probably isn't the best way to help your argument. But I appreciate the cheap laugh, so thanks for that.
Open your wallet, get a sharpie, and cross out "In God We Trust" on all of your bills.
DO IT NOW!
I'm Canadian so my money just has poems about hockey and such.
... and they're pretty colors, too.
I'm Canadian also and I'd much rather see "In God we trust" than Queen E! Let's get her off and put something that is true Candiana.
Do the Queen and girlies allow true Scotch in Canada??
How about a maple scented bill?
Please do not EVER say that you want to "get the Queen off"; I am now scarred for life.
"In God we trust" is even less appropriate in Canada than in the US. Canada is a much more secularized nation (thank God for that!)
and a picture of a real ugly woman
I heard it was made of back bacon and wore a toque?
TRULY!!! john adams and the majority of our founding fathers denounce god and say god has nothing to do with America.. let us be free, and not trust in an imaginary figure called god and slave over his rules and fake people.
I do that regularly Dog. I replace god with REASON. Because, in reason we should be trusting, not fairy tales.
Not speaking German is not a language. Not believing in gods is not a belief system. There are not six types of not believing in something. There are an infinite number. You can't group atheists.
Agnostic (not believing) is not a belief system. I am an atheist, I believe there is no god(s). I admit it is a belief system. We're not all the same.
How many types of people don't believe in unicorns?
I don't know, probably a small group to begin with.
Good point.
Tha's a fallacy, you can't compare unicorns with gods. I'm a proud atheist
@ Jan
and why not? both are made up.
B
Feel as you will, but your logic fails you.
For your belief to be true, Atheists would have had to develop a God (to becomes theists) thus no longer being Atheists
It's like a coin, on one side is the folks who declare a God, with different sects being on the same side.
Agnostic are on the edge, and Atheists are on the OPPOSITE side, you know, in the group that does NOT have a God.
They may se grouped into smaller divisions, but by definition they must be on the opposite side (or group) from the super set of believers
Your assertions are baseless.
My facts are irrefutable.
Third grade math proves it.
No it doesnt Mathew, u r grasping @ straws.....
You're saying you only go through third grade? Now THERE'S something I could believe.
There is no such thing as "atheism", which is, in and of itself, a religion. But it doesn't exist. Only agnosticism exists. Until agnostics such as yourself posses all the knowledge of the universe, then you cannot say or prove there is no god, which is the foundation of atheism. Oh sure, you can call yourself an atheist, but you're not, and never will be, as much as you'd like to believe you are.
So Theist can exist in moral cert1tude, but Atheists can not?
How utterly ridiculous.
In fact, we are born Atheists and only become Theists thru poor or malevolent parenting
Atheism is a religion as much as not playing soccer is a sport.
Anyone who believes there is no God is an atheist. You sound silly saying no such people exist.
Many Theists believe Atheists have elevated Science to a deity level, and thus have become a religion, but this doesn't stand up to examination
It is fair to say that *some* people do behave that way.
Critical thinking needs to be applied to all scientific findings (and is of course the whole point).
The good news about science is that when we realize we have something wrong, we are happy to change our minds.
Arguably religions do the same thing*, but in the same breath they say it is the immutable unchanging will of God.
* Slavery is now wrong.
Selling indulgences is now wrong.
Mormons will admit African Americans.
Mormonism is no longer a cult (according the the Billy (no make that Franklin, "thank you for the nice cheque Mitt") Graham ministries.
Everybody believes things. If that is what you mean by belief system, then OK.
So long as you don't define it as religion.
@bostontola: WOW, you mince words so much that it's really hard to understand what you're saying or where you're coming from. If you're a militant Atheist, that's fine, but you're also picking at other Atheists and Agnostics...which kinda shows that you might just be anti-social.
If I minced words no one would be offended. I have my perspective, I'm not a militant atheist, just an atheist. Why should I not voice my opinion. Are you afraid of something?
Yes, actually I'm afraid of the spread of anti-social and contrary behavior. In your posts you disagree with other atheists and you pick at semantics.
And actually, that's my opinion, which I also have the right to voice. Does that make YOU afraid?
I'm afraid that when communication on a blog, all there is, is semantics. If you fail to see nuance, then don't engage, another choice for you. This whole topic is about the nuanced differences we have. Perhaps you are a new category of atheist, the simpleton.
Ah, curious how you resorted to a VERY christian way of response. Threatening and intimidating. Curious that you want to silence me because I disagree with you.
Good luck with that psychosis. You're probably a very lonely person...when you're not on the computer...
Where did I try to silence you. You are the one who said I should take a side, what's up with bostontola, you made judgements. I've just been stating my perspective, you've been trying to tell me what I SHOULD do. You are proof that atheists haven't cornered the market on critical thinking skills.
And again proof that you fail to ask questions...you simply expect people to believe you're right all the time: I'm not an Atheist.
You're right about that, I jumped the gun and assumed it, my apologies. I am gratified you are not in the ranks of atheists, we don't need people with poor critical thinking skills.
Interesting that you keep defaulting to name calling. A sign of ignorance and fear. I think you have plenty of that in your Atheist ranks. LOL!!!
At 11:58 in a post below, you accused me of being an extremist weirdo. I later accused you of having weak critical thinking skills. Which is name calling?
The A&A's have been swallowed up by the socies. Don't BLAME the CHRISTIANS!
What's a socie?
Isn't that Italian Bowling? 🙂
I think if all people were either deist, agnostic, or atheist, there would be no Belief blogs.
It's two things that cause most of the stress; 1. Theists that want to impose the rules of their beliefs on others, and 2. Adherence to Theistic myths that are scientifically false.
EXTREMIST WEIRDO ALERT...... EXTREMIST WEIRDO ALERT....
Whoops my weirdo alert post went under the wrong comment....
Is this what passes for an argument in your circle or are you joking?
Sorry
Ted Nugent: Trayvon Martin was a ‘dope smoking, racist gangsta wannabe’ ANSWER- Ted Nugent IS a dope smoking white as an empty ghost sack of maggots in my garbage racist gangster: with maggot sack of garbage police friends all over the U.S.. 🙂
I like the Noog when he's playing a guitar. I don't care about his opinion on Trayvon Martin.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand?
Okay, Ted Nugent is ridiculous, but what does he have to do with atheism? Are you lost?
@inshaallah2013 You are a winner! Yes. You won first prize for the dumbest and barely coherent comment yet. Congratulations moron. BTW, your allah is a fake.
@ Patrick: No it didn't go under the wrong post. It's hard to tell what's up with bostontola.
Bostontola is fine, and you are trying to pick a fight for no other reason than you are anti-social yourself.
He is one of the calmer people on here; you have shown yourself to be in the "troll" category, judging by your previous posts.
Grow up, little boy.
Well little . people say that likes attract likes....
Really, littl o? You're the one playing troll games, flamer.
If someone disagrees with you they are extreme and weird?
You have to be pretty blind, arrogant, and/or ignorant with all of the proof (factual evidence) throughout history to believe there is no existence of things in other dimensions that are higher than the physical realm. I really feel sorry for people that are like this. Not really though, it's their life. If they want to remain uneducated and blind because they can't physically see it then that's their choice. Dark forces and Light forces exist regardless of their plausible deniability. It will be their loss in the end.
That's evidence of God?
Charles Barkley is the only dark force of evil I am aware of.
Always two there are – a master and an apprentice.
EXTREMIST WEIRDO ALERT....EXTREMIST WEIRDO ALERT....
I feel sorry for people who are too lazy to think about what they believe.
See, your comment is exactly why so many atheists are combative towards religious folk. We really don't need your pity. Stop "feeling sorry" for me because you think I lack something. Also, what proof is this? You know, they used to think gods were what made the sun rise every morning. Or summoned storms. Or grew crops. Then of course, we learned they weren't.
No, what you need, you take. Like takin' over belief blogs.
Oh the irony of your comment...
Should non-tangible "factual evidence" be considered "factual" if you can't actually observe it? Normally I'm a bystander, laughing at the attempts of believers to support their cause with the justification of "evidence", but frankly, you have none. As in zero.
SHOW me the evidence, and I will convert to your cause and assist you in your ridiculous crusade.
There can be no "factual evidence" of the supernatural, otherwise it woud simply be deemed natural.
Having grown up near Times Square, I have seen PLENTY of things that do in fact exist, that even I would be hard pressed to call natural!
Saying that there is "factual evidence" is not the same as presenting such evidence. So please, share some examples of what some of that evidence is. Please keep in mind that personal experience is not to be confused with "factual evidence" nor "proof"
Malarkey
What a load of malarkey and you know it.
You feel sorry for people who are rational? How pathetic.
You have the right to believe that.
I object to you thinking you have the right to tell children those crap stories as facts, and screw up their lives based on your delusions.
You have the right to believe that, of course.
I object to you thinking you have the right to tell children those crap stories as facts, and screw up their lives based on your delusions.
Life, and belief, is like the Matrix when Morpheus asked Neo to choose the red pill or the blue pill. One would allow you to sleep in a dream like state, while reality still happened around you. You intentionally cloaked yourself in a fantasy world to get away from the harsh, cruel reality. The other pill allowed you to accept reality as it were. We all make the choice, but it is a personal choice, who is right and who is wrong? Don't think it matters one bit. Atheists, which I am, love to laugh at the amusing fantasy world of believers. Believers love to question the moral code of people who don't have someone telling them how to live.
The term fantasy is somewhat derogatory. It is a theory. Same as any other since we don't really know.
Theory???? You need to look up the definiton of theory. Fantasy is a very appropriate term for people who live in a world that is whatever they "interpret" it to be.
So a 'theory' called the big bang where everything just poofs into existence is just as hard to believe in as a God but that's OK?
@justageeker,
The Big Bang model is bases on evidence such and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the "Hubble flow" of all distant objects away from the observer.
should be "based"
@ME II – I agree there is evidence that exists today. That's incontrovertible. Problem is what exists today can be explained by a number of theories.
@justageeker,
"Problem is what exists today can be explained by a number of theories."
Not really. While many scientific theories together, like gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, etc. explain much of what we see today, there aren't many generally accepted scientific theories that both explain something equally well and contradict each other.
If you are thinking of origin of the universe hypotheses, then I'd suggest that they are not generally accepted as yet and often may not even be testable.
Religion is not a "theory" in any scientific sense.
Why?
@justageeker,
In short, evidence.
"In everyday usage, 'theory' often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, 'I have a theory about why that happened,' they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
(Nation Academy of Science, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=11)
@ME II – So everything around us and including us could be considered evidence of God the same as any other 'theory'...No?
@Justageeker,
No, it can't because no one has shown that "everything around us" was caused by, or is evidence of, a god.
@ME II – Sure they have. It's just that some folks choose not to believe the stories passed down over time. Nothing wrong with that. I personally don't understand how a God could create us but I also don't understand the math behind the big bang theory either. I understand he cliff notes easy enough like most everyone else.
@justageeker,
" Sure they have. It's just that some folks choose not to believe the stories passed down over time."
Sorry, but stories are not evidence, unless they can be verified as accurate descriptions of actual phenomena, they are just stories.
Sorry. I should have been more clear. The real evidence is that we exists. The supporting evidence are stories.
@justageeker,
"The real evidence is that we exists. The supporting evidence are stories."
Our existence is no more evidence of your god than for anyone else's god or a completely ficti.tious story. In other words, it's not evidence at all.
Decartes would be disappointed with that. Our existence is most certainly evidence of something. It's the something that is debatable...not our existence as evidence of something.
@justageeker,
"Cogito ergo sum" is evidence of my own existence, not anything else, and certainly not how I cane to exist. Descartes reduced knowledge to a single certain thing. Everything else was less certain.
@ME II – Hmm. I can accept that I suppose. Not any harder to believe I am the only thing that exists than any other theory explaining existence.
@justageeker,
"Not any harder to believe I am the only thing that exists than any other theory explaining existence."
Again, you misunderstand, perhaps on purpose, I don't know. Descartes, nor my interpretation of him, was claiming that "i" am the only thing that exists, simply that "I" am the only thing that I can be certain that exists. Other things may well exist, but not at the level of certainty of "I".
You seem to be choosing the interpretation of any statement in the way most beneficial to your pre-selected answer, instead of honestly investigating them the intent of the statement.
This reminds me of someone else who used to frequent this blog.
@ME II – I meant the same thing you just said. I just didn't say it as eloquently as you did.
I should also have responded to the 'pre-selected answer' statement with what mine is. Mine is 'I don't know' and no one has been able to say there are no more theories because here is the one absolute proven fact of where we came from.
@justageeker,
Fair enough... and thanks for the complement.
You're welcome. I enjoy healthy discussions. I can never stop learning and I learn something from everyone.
Theories are based on evidence. They may not be valid, but they are at least consistent with the evidence as it's understood. Religion ignores evidence.
Not always. There is no evidence to suggest where everything came from in the big bang theory. It basically just says everything appeared from nothing. Believing in a God nowadays is based on past accounts. Those accounts are open to debate but nonetheless there is something to base belief on. And of course the one who first proposed a God could be considered the same as Georges. All theories. All debatable. No one should belittle anyone for what they believe.
Or worse, pretend they don't have any moral codes because they believe morality comes straight from God, period. 🙄
The word theory has a definite meaning and applying it to the existence of a supreme being is not correct. It may be conjecture or simply wishful thinking, but it is not a theory for the simple reason that it cannot be tested.
Believers don't question the morale code of those that don't have one. Read Romans chapter 1 to understand.
Atheists have morals. You are very judgemental. Read Mathew 7 to understand.
"Believers don't question the morale code of those that don't have one."
That must be why you never question the bible or your pastor.