klustered

Wednesday 21st March 2007 | 09:57 PM

i saw a link at reddit: http://www.eyje.com/showtopic.php?topic=atheism there are some amazing thoughts about atheism in there.

Allan

Wednesday 21st March 2007 | 10:24 PM

As a recent atheist convert I can say this one of the best written articles I have seen on this topic due in part to the logical explanations you provided and it affirms everything I always thought. You have performed a great service writing this. Bless you :-)

Gilian

Wednesday 21st March 2007 | 11:02 PM

Not all people are of their parents religion but I admit most people are. I am but have no qualms about having never tried other religions. If I'm happy in my faith why would I bother to seek another?

Ted

Thursday 22nd March 2007 | 12:23 AM

Very well written! It's exactly what I tell people when the question my beliefs (if you can really call atheism a belief).

Mark Mywords

Thursday 22nd March 2007 | 09:10 AM

Your going straight to hell

The Other White Meat

Thursday 22nd March 2007 | 12:51 PM

Well said, Its up to our generation now to take charge of our future as well as our children's. Lets see if we can do a better job than the generation before. Religion is good for those who need it, religion should be practiced behind closed doors in the comfort of our homes, Churches, Mosques, Synagogue's and Cultist Compounds. Lets get on with more important things and fix what we may not have for much longer?

Cannon Fodder

Thursday 22nd March 2007 | 01:00 PM

believing is wonderful, acting on your beliefs can have dire consequences on yourself and those around you, just ask your local Jihadist?

FangFace =(o.o)=

Thursday 22nd March 2007 | 05:44 PM

LOL @ 1800-Dob-in-a-heathen

Val

Thursday 22nd March 2007 | 06:44 PM

I like to play it safe. I am agnostic but still go to church and confession just in case. It's probably habit more than anything now but I cant seem to change. What will you do if it turns out there is a God?

Michael

Thursday 22nd March 2007 | 06:59 PM

Hi Val. If one day (we) are all presented with irrefutable proof of God's existence, well I would have some questions for him (her?).

How can an all seeing, all knowing God with the power to intervene:

...allow rape and murder of innocent people?
...allow people to murder in his name?
...idly stand by while people in 3rd world countries starve?

Furthermore, when something good happens why it is 'A miracle of God' but when something awful happens it is 'Part of God's plan'?

If you do exist, God, I will acknowledge you. But based on your past performance you are hardly worthy of anyone's respect or worship.

Missy

Friday 23rd March 2007 | 07:00 PM

Congratulations on a well informed article under the guise of persuasion. If agnostic's don't convert to atheism after reading this then they never will.

Uncovered Meat

Saturday 24th March 2007 | 02:23 AM

One day when the world is vaporised.. and the Jehovas are in their heavens, the muslims are with alah and their virgins, the mooneys are in their space ship and the scientologists are counting their money... just maybe and I mean just maybe... we all say "fcuk theres nothing here"

dr_dimento

Saturday 24th March 2007 | 08:31 AM

I think you may need to clarify your position a little. While I am also in the same philosophical arena as you are, I believe that if you are not 100% sure that there is no God then you are, in fact, agnostic. While I hate to mix words here, there are certainly differences between atheist and agnostic.

In all, I thought you presented a well thought out argument and wish you good luck in helping others understand that while we may not follow religion (for me it's the whole corruption, hypocrisy and greed of all religions) we are still good people.

Michael

Saturday 24th March 2007 | 11:05 AM

Dr_Dimento says: "I believe that if you are not 100% sure that there is no God then you are, in fact, agnostic."

I am certain there is no God, but I just can't 100% prove it. No-one in the word can dis-prove God's existence, no matter how atheist they are, even though all the evidence in the world would seem to discredit religion on all grounds.

One of the most well known atheists of our time (Richard Dawkins) even allows for the possibility, in keeping with good scientific practices. Good science allows for any possibility, which doesn't necessarily make you agnostic.

Sunday 25th March 2007 | 07:17 PM

I stumbled on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi3YupW6JJQ">this video just now and thought it appropriate enough to put it here. It made me lol.

Michael

Sunday 25th March 2007 | 07:29 PM

Loved that video. Like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeqeNisXE2k">this one better :-) "God put us here and that's that!" LOL

Rodney

Monday 26th March 2007 | 12:50 AM

Good article, as always, Michael.

So your question above, which amounts to "if God exists, why does he let bad things happen to good people". That's one of those questions which everyone seems to ask and I find a bit confusing. Everyone seems to acknowledge the concept of "free will" yet people also use the same concept the other way.

If there's a God and we have free will, you can't blame God for "rape", "murder" and "starvation" of third world countries. People did all those things, not God. What's the point of free will if everytime you do something wrong, He just steps in and sets it right? That's kind of like playing a game in cheat mode. Fun at first but it gets boring real fast.

If we don't have the capacity to chose to do the wrong thing, there's no benefit in chosing the right thing. Let's take the stand point that there is a God and there is a purpose. If we only do good things, what possible purpose can there be in our existance? Why would we be put here like robots to perform wonderful deeds? Only by choosing to perform a good deed can it have meaning. Only by chooseing the 'right' choice over and over again can you grow and develop and become a better person. If there's no possibility of evil, there's no possibility of good.

So to use the argument of why does God allow rape or murder to prove the non-existance of God is meaningless. In fact, it works the other way. History would indicate that humanity works better as a team - so what is the point of an individual, from a evolutionary stand point, behaving to the detrement of the species? Doesn't this therefore indicate that we're developed to strive towards something loftier, which doesn't necessarily aid us in a purely physical 'here and now' way?

Finally I utterly agree with you that no one should push their religion onto other people - religion should be a state of spritual and emotion connection between a person, a community and God. Not a connection between a person's bank account and a tax free organisation, as is so often the case. That said (and I certainly don't accuse you of doing this here) most aetheists are about as bad as any door to door christian, when it comes to trying to get people to see things their way - I guess that's just human nature or something.

Michael

Monday 26th March 2007 | 07:55 AM

Rodney says: "most aetheists are about as bad as any door to door christian, when it comes to trying to get people to see things their way"

That's an interesting statement as I have never heard of an atheist travelling door to door trying to convert people :-)

Nor have I heard of any atheist going out of his way to 'convert' people, except for the ones in the spotlight, who are outnumbered 10,000 - 1 by the televangelists asking you to send them money because it's 'God's Will'. On that note, I have never heard of an Atheist with his own television show.

In fact the only way you know someone is atheist is is you ask them directly or of the topic of religion comes up during conversation. Christians (and other religions) on the other are notorious for going out of their way to tell you all about it weather you like it or not. I hate to generalise there, but at least that's been my experience.

That's one key difference. They religious are always on a mission to spread their word, like it's their duty.

Rodney

Monday 26th March 2007 | 01:48 PM

Yeah your point is valid. Televangelists etc are obviously over the top and mormans etc travel door to door while aethiests don't. However I've seen many-the-show (science / coumentary based) which implied that a particular version of reality is correct.

Obviously missionary religions are very active in trying to convert paychequ.. I mean people. But I do find on an individual basis, person to person, that aethiests are far more likely to try to scientifically "prove" themselves correct. Maybe it's just the circles I mix in, as I don't really know any (active) Christians? It's just been my experience that aethiests are more likely to bring the topic up?

Michael

Monday 26th March 2007 | 02:36 PM

The fact I wrote this article would almost seem to validate your last point LOL. Although I have never bought it up in conversation unless asked. Might come down to the circles we travel in as you say.

Rick

Friday 30th March 2007 | 09:47 AM

In some countries you could be shot for speaking such words. Just goes to show how fucked up religion is.

jason S

Friday 30th March 2007 | 11:34 PM

Great Article. Its becoming harder i this world to declare Athneism in this world of ever increasing religious fundamentalism.

If you haven't read it yet, read the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. A fantastic argument about the folly of religious belief.

Michael

Saturday 31st March 2007 | 09:42 AM

Thanks Jason S. I got the book recently...only just starting it after I wrote this article. I think Dawkins is my new hero :-)

andrew

Sunday 1st April 2007 | 11:40 PM

if there is a god, who or what created him/her??

Franken

Tuesday 3rd April 2007 | 04:44 PM

Andrew's question is valid. If creationist's subscribe to the theory that everything was created by the designer, then they must accept that the designer may have been designed. And who created that designer? Which begs the age old question "where did we come from?". The answer, is not God.

While I have everyone's attentions have a look at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8092395371217203993&hl=en">these crackpots that Penn and Teller put on display. My sentiments exactly.

Rodney

Thursday 5th April 2007 | 10:15 PM

" if there is a god, who or what created him/her??"

" Andrew's question is valid. If creationist's subscribe to the theory that everything was created by the designer, then they must accept that the designer may have been designed. And who created that designer? Which begs the age old question "where did we come from?". The answer, is not God. "

Firstly, before I refute these points, let me clarify that I am not trying to defend a popular notion of westernised religion, of which I do not subsribe.

None the less, the logic of these points needs to be challenged.

To state that there is no God because something must have created God, is to state there must be no universe, or else what created the big bang (and I'm fairly confident there is a universe)? You simply can't have it both ways. The mere lack of knowledge about how something was created does not refute its existence.

Science is perfectly ready to say the big bang occured - please tell me in absolutely unrefutable detail how this happened? Remember - by your own logic a failure to comply is evidence the universe does not exist.

You cannot say everything must have come from something before it. From a human point of view this is simply unbelievable. Somethign must come first, by definition.

This is why this is such a fascinating topic and kudos to Michael again for bringin up another fun (to me) topic. Neither side can logically disprove the other side and, when argued properly, neither side can be proven wrong.

The fact is you just don't know these things, people need to take a leap of faith in either direction. Is your religion a supreme being or is your religion mankind. Do you believe in unprovable biblical stories or do you believe in proven wrong science (or do you "just believe in yourself"). I have to tell you as someone with a university level physics degree, physics ain't so special - there's a whole lot of "then some magic happens" and *all* of the modern theories don't work, in some way.

Just remember, when it comes to science, every generation has believed *they* were the first generation to understand something. And their children have always laughed at their theories.

What makes you so sure you're the first generation in history that got it right?

Rodney

Thursday 5th April 2007 | 10:35 PM

Oh and one more thing:

" In some countries you could be shot for speaking such words. Just goes to show how fucked up religion is."

Three names:
* Hitler
* Stalin
* Mao

All aetheists, heading completely secular countries. Try speaking out in their countries and see what happens... In all the above countries you could in fact get shot by secular aethesists for NOT being a secular aetheist.

Countries where you could be shot for speaking such words wouldn't shot you for challenging religion. That might be the claim in the paper but the *real* reason is you were shot for challenging the power base.

People also get killed for supporting monarchies, not supporting monarchies, supporting succession, not supporting sucession and for thinking that our border shouldn't be by the river, it should be over the horizon.

There are some fucked up places to live but people are invariably the reason. Anything else is just window dressing.

Aidin

Thursday 5th April 2007 | 10:54 PM

Rodney says: "Science is perfectly ready to say the big bang occurred - please tell me in absolutely irrefutable detail how this happened?"

You raise some interesting points but if we are on the subject of flaws...

Scientists can tell you in detail how the big bang happened but at least concede its only a theory; and they also acknowledge that god could exist - just not likely. IMHO any theory is more credible than that of a grand designer.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that believing the evolutionist theory is a leap of faith, as it is supported by scientific evidence. Creationist theory on the other hand has nothing tangible at all. Just 'the bible and or God says so therefore it must be true - ah and we won't budge on that.' That is by all definition a leap of faith. To say "I have no proof, but I believe anyway".

Need I remind everyone that some of these 'leaps of faith' are responsible for children being taught that earth is only 6000 years old and that we co-existed with dinosaurs as recently as only 3000 years ago? You have to agree that's messed up.

Rodney is right about one thing though - we may not be the first generation to get it right, but I think this is the first generation to challenge everyone on such a wide scale. That's a good starting point.

Rodney

Thursday 5th April 2007 | 11:48 PM

Aidin adds that we're the first generation to challenge everyone on a wide scale. No, merely we're the next in a long series of generations who *thinks* we're the first confronting generation. Just like they thought in the sixties. Just like they thought at the turn of the century.

Scientists do not have a theory for how the big bang happened. They have a theory for what happened *during* the big bang but not before hand. At least, none that aren't considered crackpot. or just mildly amusing.

Let's all take a challenge shall we. If we recall back to our physics classes we'll recall that time and space are directly related. In fact, the definition of a metre is the distance light can travel in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

Now let's pretend that the universe started out as a big bang. A singularity. I.e. no distance (read: no time). Then it expanded. We don't know why, it just did. Maybe its neighbour was a complete tool like mine and played loud music 24x7 and it wanted to get away. Hell, that's even a thoery and frankly, one I can relate to.

SO it began to expand. Time started. But it was really close together, so time was moving a fair bit faster, to our perspective (but, importantly, not to the perspective of those inside the big bang). Over the next 15 billion years the universe expanded 1 trillion fold (1 million million times).

Now I am not going to bore everyone with the full maths, showing the time slowing as it expands, coz it's extremly long winded and I don't know how to approximate an integral symbol in ASCII but if you do the really, really, REALLY basic version 15billion*365 / 1000000000000 = 5 1/2. 5 1/2 is where "modern time" kicks in (it works out closer to 5.19 in the longer version).

And on the 6th day, God created man.

And on the 6th day, our perspective of time began to match that of the Bible's. If you stradled all of time, if you were completely omnipotent, then there would be no time perpective difference between what we see as time and time 10 billion years ago, which by all accounts (including physics, remember I have a degree in it) was moving much faster. But even physics and my physics lecturer agreed that from an overall perspective, you cannot actually refute the 6 days of creation concept.

So that's phsyics; the greatest physists of our time, Einstein, believed in God. What do you know that he didn't?

SO yeah, I agree it's messed up what's being taught in the US just now. I agree that large elements of religion have gone way off the track and the stupid arguements they make do more harm to their cause than good. But I still can't help but boogle at the people who mock them, yes even them, while being 100% hipocritical.

It's a complete leap of faith for 99% of the community to believe in the big bang too. I'd be willing to bet if you asked 100 people tomorrow to explain it, 99 couldn't. Yet they believe in it. That's absolutely no different to believing in 6 days of creation. Someone you respect told you, so you believe. It's the human condition, I'm afraid.

I'll admit I believe in evolution. But I know SFA about it. Not a damn thing. Some guy named after a MacOS crashed into a rock off some island I can't spell, saw a lizard and -tada- we have a thoery. That pretty much sums up my understanding of it but I still believe in it. Just like all of us, at some point or other.

(Ok so maybe its about stuff that mutates over time, but isn't cancer a cell mutation, so why isn't cancer evolution? or is it? I don't know! Someone here may do and to them it's not a leap of faith but to me, I'm afraid it is.)

If we don't believe in God, we just fill the belief void with the next available thing. I believe we're programmed to believe.

Michael

Friday 6th April 2007 | 01:22 AM

Actually Einstein was an atheist. But the church (deliberately?) took a lot of things he said out of context because they wanted such an esteemed scientist on their side.

Reading some of Einstein's quotes it is easy to misinterprate what he meant. Especially as he often mad mention of a 'personal god'.

Coincidentally I am reading 'The God Delusion' right now and have just passed the part where Dawkin's makes mention of this.

Incidentally, while we are all sitting on opposite sides of the fence here, take a moment to http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html">look at this guy.

Rodney: Funny you should say "we are programmed to believe". I read this today: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/index.html">Are humans hard-wired for faith?

Rodney

Friday 6th April 2007 | 01:53 AM

Didn't Einstein write that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Seems like a good quote to sum it up, to me?

Scott Adams actually make mention of a lot of interesting stuff in his free to download book, God's Debris: (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/free_ebook_of_g.html">link).

For anyone who doesn't recognise the name - he writes Dilbert.

Peter Archer

Friday 6th April 2007 | 10:59 AM

As an agnostic observer looking to be pointed in one direction or another I reckon Rodney is winning this round so far! Good to see the gloves come off from both sides on this topic.

Franken

Sunday 8th April 2007 | 12:26 PM

Einstein was an atheist and is a well documented fact. From the 1st page of his autobiography notes:

"Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude... has never left me."

And in 1954 he also wrote:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

That clearly settles the issue.

Awesome Wells

Tuesday 17th April 2007 | 09:19 PM

Terrific stuff. Articles like this should be mandatory reading in schools. To at least show that there is such a thing as a caring, well balanced atheist.

Gilly

Thursday 19th April 2007 | 01:10 PM

The Gospel according to Mikey and replys by his disciples

So you believe in atheism, without any proof. That my friend is faith and faith or belief in something unseen, well you work it out.
Toughen up princess, Christians are not out to get you. Poor persecuted athiest that you are.
The main difference today is the free thinking, educated types are teachingt that believing in God is uncool, and then taught to believe that they are in control of there own lives, and when they believe that, they may get the oppertunity to realise there stupidity
You say you have never seen anything to prove gods existence.
If you where walking down a track and found a watch, would that watch have been created, of course. If you came across another person walking down that track who is infinetly more complex than a watch, you believe that, that person was randomly formed from a puddle.
You will never see anything to make you believe in god, because you take everything for granted, like the rest of this generation, me included.

Michael

Friday 20th April 2007 | 04:54 PM

Gilly says: "The main difference today is the free thinking, educated types are teachingt that believing in God is uncool, and then taught to believe that they are in control of there own lives, and when they believe that, they may get the oppertunity to realise there stupidity."

So you would say belonging to a faith means you have no control over your life? The outcome of all our decisions have already been decided?

Wow imagine if that were actually true. It's one thing to believe in God without any proof but it's another to say we have no say in how we live our short lives on this planet. Everything that happens, and will happen, is God's doing and can not be altered? Did God make these people post messages on this site?

I agree there are certain things in our lives that are beyond our control. I might walk outside tomorrow and get hit by a car. That's either me being careless or the driver being careless. Either way it's not God's doing. The coroner's report will never say "It was god's doing".

There are people out there who genuinely believe everything that happens is God's will. If someone could explain to me how innocent people being murdered, or children being raped and molested happened because God wanted it to, I would love to hear that defended. And then I would love to hear you try and convince me that a God that idly sits by and watches children get raped isn't sick.

The real reason children get raped is because there are some sick and twisted people among us. That reason actually makes sense, and is something we can actually prove.

Furthermore, we live in a society that is predominantly religious. When people go to court they are even sworn in with a hand on the bible, a symbolic gesture at best. Following the logic that we are not in control of our lives, that our paths have already been pre-determined, is it possible for someone to plead "it wasn't my fault - I am just another pawn in God's plan with no say as to how I arrived at this situation - it was therefore unavoidable?".

Of course not. Not a person on the planet would accept it, no matter how much they believe in God's plan.

Gilly

Saturday 21st April 2007 | 03:51 PM

Gilly said that we are not in control of our own lives, Gilly also realises we do control our own decisions.
If I decide to rape a child that is my choice. God has given me free will to do whateve I like. He has also given me inbuilt moral guidelines, a circut judge in the brain/heart if you like.
If God was to intervene in every thing man dose, what would the point of having a free will be.
I have no understanding of God I also have no idea what this life I am living means to God. What I do realise is I have made poor choices and the outcomes of those choices have harmed others ( I will call it sin) and I feel bad about that. Christ died to forgive my sin. I still make poor choices but I try harder not to now.What is the down side of this.
Hitler was a spiritualist Mao and Stalin where athiests, they started wars to benefit themselves, just like all those who start a war under the banner of Christianity, they do it to benefit themselves. Where in the Christian bible does Christ say Lets go to war or even harm someone.
You say you are an athiest so why do you value life ,why be hounest, why not steal . Surely there can be nothing wrong with that. You funny enough live by Christian standards, athiests dont have any, do they?

Michael

Saturday 21st April 2007 | 09:00 PM

I think a lot of people confuse 'Christian Standards' with plain old common sense and morality. I know right from wrong. And I certainly don't subscribe to the theory that these traits about me are the result of religion.

I think what you are saying is - unless I misunderstood - is that it's impossible to be a good person, know right from wrong and have a moral compass unless you follow the bible. That's quite a statement to make. Some parents will raise their children without ever exposing them to the bible (a very close minded approach), and these kids turn out just fine.

Knowing right from wrong has absolutely nothing to do with religion. If you were to say that a world without religion would be and instant chaos of rape, murder and pillaging, then you are simply saying that the only reason you don't do these awful things is because the bible says it's wrong.

Do you think that - without the existence of the bible - you would not be a good person?

I would say it's a pretty safe bet, that if tomorrow someone found irrefutable, undeniable proof that there is no God and the bible - although having some good things to say is a farce - and the proof was so damning that even the highest of religious organisations conceded, then you would still in fact be a person of good standing.

My point is, people can still be good moral people - even more so sometimes - without religion. I am living proof of that as are many others.

gilly

Sunday 22nd April 2007 | 01:30 PM

What are these standards you talk about based on.
What is your personall problem with Christianity.
Why are you so against Christianity.

M O said-
"if tomorrow someone found irrefutable, undeniable proof that there is no God and the bible - although having some good things to say is a farce - and the proof was so damning that even the highest of religious organisations conceded, then you would still in fact be a person of good standing".

Probably the biggest issue facing Christianity is people listening to these "religious organisations".
Christianity is based on a relationship between Me and Christ, not me and a church or priest.
If your conscience was a plant, there are plenty of people out there today, who have never watered that plant.
and Mike. Dont take that bet. Before I was a Christian I was going down a dark path. Christ called me away. I still know the path.

gilly

Sunday 22nd April 2007 | 01:43 PM

my problem with you Mike is you have no understanding of Christianity. Your opinions seem to be based as if you have listend to a radio that recieves more static than information.
Christianity is based on love and forgiveness, what is your problem with Jesus.

gilly

Sunday 22nd April 2007 | 02:08 PM

and quickly.
Hypothetically, if God suddenly didnt exist. Dont start preaching your athiest moral beliefs to me.

I cant see why people hate Christianity, You accept it or you dont.

Michael

Sunday 22nd April 2007 | 03:59 PM

Wow that's quite a rant. I don't hate Christianity. Not entirely sure how you read that into what I am saying.

I am glad becoming a Christian pulled you away from a dark path. I have no qualms with anything that helps people through troubled times.

Gilly said: "Christianity is based on a relationship between Me and Christ".
I wish more Christians were like you. It seems most of the others are compelled to knock at my door asking if I have 'found Christ'.

But I do believe you have misinterpreted some of the things I wrote in this article. I have no problem with Christianity. My 2 daughters may grow up to be Christians due to my Wife's influence, and I have no problem with that. Or they may not. Either way we will not have forced one preference over another onto them.

Forcing your own beliefs onto your children is what I do have a problem with. All religions are guilty of doing just that, as are some atheists as well. It is very close minded.

Teaching them about religion is all good and fine and I encourage it, because no-one can truly make an informed decision about which way they might he headed unless they have an understanding of both sides of the argument.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, the thought of any parent who says to his/her child 'you will believe in God no matter what and that's final because I do!' is just plain sickening to me. In just the same manner as some atheist parents might do the same - tell their kids not to waste time with God because THEY don't believe in God, it is very close minded and in my personal opinion a form of child abuse.

That's pretty much I have left to say on the subject. Thanks for some for the most interesting discussion I have had in a long time though, even if it was online :-)

Rodney

Sunday 22nd April 2007 | 08:01 PM

And here it comes.

Can someone please explain to me why whenever there's a discussion on religion some proported "Christian" wades in and starts the abuse? This discussion was perfectly civil and even handed up until this point.

Nothing Mike said above was disrespectful to Christianity, he mearly stated that he doesn't feel compelled to believe in it. He also never singled out Christianity for attack.

Finally, although I already know what the reply will be (along the lines of intential misinterpretations of the "old testament"), let me remind you that the values you claim to defend are not Christian values. They're Jewish values. Christianity simply borrowed then.

gilly

Monday 23rd April 2007 | 02:10 PM

Sad that is sounds like a Rant, especially after reading your initial comments. My apologies.
and Rod, Go read the second book af the first testament. These are the rules for jews to live by.
Christ came in the second testament to end thier religion.
Why am I abusive, maybe its the way you read it. I was trying very hard to keep this a discussion instead of an argument.
Ok, Time for another rant then.
What annoys me, Your understanding is wrong and you dont see a need to find out the truth.

Rodney

Monday 23rd April 2007 | 06:06 PM

What annoys me is you telling me my religion is dead ("ended").

Aside from that, your argument that your side is the one and only truth and that everyone else must agree or be wrong highlights my comments above. Everyone, at some level, seems to think this, it's just human nature. People posting above supporting aethesim also seem to follow the arguement that you either agree with them, or are not correct.

The key points of difference here are two-fold.
1 - of all the people posting here, Michael has been very careful to *not* come across in that way. At no point has Mike said anyone else is wrong and his way is the only truth.
2 - While the rest of us are a little bit guilty of implying we're the correct side of the story, Gilly is the first person to use inflamatory language and start a rant / abuse of any and all other sides.

Perhaps this is because someone with a religious outlook is emotionally invested in the arguement while aethesists are not but it seems that this converstation, when held online, always disolves into an abuse fest and in my experience at least, it's always the same group who start it.

Janine

Tuesday 24th April 2007 | 10:27 AM

http://googlified.com/2007google-vs-god/"> Google vs God

Albert9

Tuesday 24th April 2007 | 10:57 PM

Hey Gilly could you please explain to us how Hitler and Stalin being atheist has anything to do with what they did? That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. They committed atrocities because they were evil not because they were atheist.

Remember when those cops beat Rodney King? They were all God fearing Christians. So do you blame their actions on their religious association? Or do you, Gilly, only jump to that conclusion when atheists are involved? That's called a double standard and it's idiots like you who make the rest of us Christians look like smug condescending self-righteous wankers.

Oh and FYI Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic and never denounced his faith. The church I am embarrassed to say spreading propaganda again.

Peter Archer

Thursday 26th April 2007 | 03:17 PM

Spot on albert9. All religions are guilty at one stage or another of blaming atheism or even agnosticism for people's wrong doings. Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches, maybe thats the reason they were evil! Both of these excuses are as credible as each other.

An atheist or agnostic does something terrible, the religious are quick to blame their religious background. But if a religious person does something terrible, move the spotlight away from their religious background and focus on something else instead.

Its a double standrd as he said but the more common word is hypocrisy.

jez

Thursday 26th April 2007 | 04:00 PM

those of you with an open mind... read conversations with god by neale donald walsche...

peace...

Rodney

Thursday 26th April 2007 | 10:18 PM

Well if there's anything this page shows, it's that no side is free of hipocrates.

Number of people claiming religion starts wars / rape /etc: 5.
Number of people claiming aethesists start wars / rape etc: 2.

Number of people claiming religious people are hipocrates for stating that aethists start wars: 2. Go figure.

However, please consider that I brought up Hitler / Stalin / Mao etc only as a direct counter to the arguement that religion starts wars, so I'm not sure if you can count that.

This whole thread got me thinking, at the Dawn Service, about how people claim religion starts wars. None of the conflicts diggers ever served in were started by religion. In fact, none of the wars of the last several hundred years were. Only one I can think of was the crusades?

But I tell ya, Monarchies sure have a lot to answer for ;-) Maybe we need a thread on the Republic debate :-p

jez

Saturday 28th April 2007 | 12:29 PM

funny... i cant think of many wars, if any, that weren't
started over religious differences. some may appear to be territorial or political disputes, but if you look deeply most will fall under the cloak of religion...

i was lucky enough to be given the choice.

i'm anti religion and anti monarchy. any body that says 'our
way is the right way, and please feel free to judge the snot out of everyone who disagrees'... or even kill them in some religions, or gives you a set of rules that you are supposed to live by is not ok with me...

we all have an inbuilt moral compass, and yes i believe in god before you ask, just not religion or the bible, i'm more of a spiritualist, and we all know the difference between right and wrong, deep down.

people who commit evil and and say they didn't know any better are just copping out and not taking responsibility. there is a big difference to speeding which is breaking a law, and not necessarily bad or evil, and taking your dads shotgun and mowing down 3 kids in the local playground...

we dont need to be told...

in any case, religion has a lot to answer for, but has also done a lot of good too.

i think invariably humans are just judgmental and irresponsible and are all too ready to pass the buck and assign blame to anyone other than themselves for the appalling state of decay we find our society in.

unless you are personally doing something about it.. well then you are to blame, not anyone else.

why dont we all stop pointing the finger and start taking responsibility and tipping in to make the world a better place?

peace,

jez...

jez

Saturday 28th April 2007 | 12:33 PM

gilly... you seem to have gone awful quiet???

(sorry, couldn't resist...lol)

Gilly

Wednesday 2nd May 2007 | 04:59 PM

The Question was ?
I dont deny religion starts wars. I didnt say Athiests are evil.
Hitler was a spiritualist. I didnt say he was an athiest.
Rod, I said Christ died to end religion. I didnt say he ended it.

You are all welcome to explore anything you like. Just dont go pin your ignorant uneducated illformed views on the Bible and what you are to lazy to understand.
cant find a L O L head to go with that. Damn

Happy Jez?

jez

Thursday 3rd May 2007 | 01:15 AM

Hey! I'm a spiritualist!!!

Maybe I want to kill millions of Jews and just don't know it yet?

Better read the bible quick smart... :-)

gilly

Thursday 3rd May 2007 | 08:54 PM

Ahhh, But do you have a moustache?

Klugman L.

Thursday 7th June 2007 | 09:22 PM

Atheism is a touchy subject in our family. When I told my Mum I was a 'Darwinist' she didn't understand until I said that it means I don't believe in God. It changed our relationship. But she is from a different time, raised a God fearing Christian, surrounded by God fearing Christians who spawned God fearing Christians. These are the people who's minds will likely never be changed. But better to be true to yourself than lie to save another's feelings.

God?

Thursday 21st June 2007 | 09:01 AM

you CAN'T prove that something is NOT possible! That simply makes no sense, what's to stop me from saying "i can fly" you cant prove that i can't...!

Furthermore why does god need to have a sex? why does god need to care about rape? or hunger? why does god need to have human emotions/ideals?
Since "god" is clearly NOT human!

The answers to the questions above is more simple than you think, we project our emotions/feelings that the world should be a better place onto some transideltal being "god" in a seach for a leader. "Humans NEED answers to questions", and when the question is unanswerable the mind (as a defensible mechanism) simply answers everything for you, "god". We NEED to know that the world is fair, that it is just.. that there is balance.. but it is NOT.. the concept of right and wrong. No matter how wide spread through human culture is intirely human bred, why should it be true?

My point is that religion, i dont care which one (DOES NOT MATTER!), is a defense mechanism, an answer to questions that are otherwise too complex to solve.

Hoggy

Thursday 21st June 2007 | 10:34 AM

God said: what's to stop me from saying "i can fly" you cant prove that i can't...!

Bad example. It's pretty easy to prove that someone can or can't fly. It's impossible to prove god does or does not exist.

God? said: My point is that religion, i dont care which one (DOES NOT MATTER!), is a defense mechanism, an answer to questions that are otherwise too complex to solve.

That's perfectly true. You can go as far to say current religion in any format is a throwback to the times when 'god' was used to explain naturally occurrences like the day/night cycle through to the success of your crops.

god?

Thursday 21st June 2007 | 06:30 PM

Address to Hoggy's comment:
The point was not the specific example, the point was the context of the sentence.. what i meant was that the non believer shouldn't try to prove god doesn't exist, thats impossible, the believer have to prove that he does.
The reason why its impossible has nothing to do with "god" its simply due to the context of the sentence.
What my example was surpossed to signify was that that anyone can stand up and say "there is a god" it's not possible to prove that he's wrong.

Furthermore i do agree with you:
---------------------------------------------------------
That's perfectly true. You can go as far to say current religion in any format is a throwback to the times when 'god' was used to explain naturally occurrences like the day/night cycle through to the success of your crops.
---------------------------------------------------------
but the example you made here may be misunderstood by some people, since the "day/night cycle" is common knowlegde nowadays.
Any question can be answered, i dont even think i have to make an example, im sure anyone reading this has his own box of unsolveable mysteries.
But lets try anyways, just off the top of my head..:
"who am i?"
"what is my place in this world?"
"why am i here?"
or questions like:
"why do i suffer?"
"why does anyone suffer?"
"why does people starve?"
or maybe even questions that are not common knowlegde, because the reseach hasn't come through yet, like:
"what are dreams? how does dreams work?"
"what is déjà vu?"
"what is time? is it linear? is it multi-dimentional?"
"what happened before the big bang?"
"will the univers end?"
Many such questions are not answerable simply because we cant gather the data we need to acommodate any theories we might think up.

What im trying to say is, i dont need to go back in time, "god" is still used to explain natural occurenses or a means of trying to fit the image of a "just and true" world onto our own.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 22nd June 2007 | 08:59 AM

god, and ironic resonce to your questions;

1You are you, nobody else, but you, ie. you
2Your place in the world is what ever you want it to be, no limits of time and space, just do it
3you are here for work experience, so that you may one day be worshipped like the gods before you
4You suffer because although you call yourself god, you do not yet believe it, you are master of your universe, which again includes you and no other. So if you suffer, you can only hold yourself to 'blame'
5Everybody that suffers does so for the same reason. They believe themselves to be oppressed and victims of circumstance or life. Ghandi was a sufferer, Mandella was a sufferer, the drummer from def lepoard yet they took life by the cohones irrespective.
6People starve because they reproduced too much when they already did not have food. I should say at this point that I sponsor 3 children in the Sudan.
7Dreams are just that, dreams. If you choose to read more into them then they begin to have a purpose. How you interpret your dreams is not a process of right or wrong, but true or untrue to you.
8Dejavu is a sexy word, similar to dreams, if you read something into it, it means something... true or untrue to you.
9Time is as linear as it is to you. I'm close to finishing my next article which is on the reality of reality. As humans we see time in a linear way because of how it unfolds infront of us. Reality and time are one and both are subjective to the person viewing the reality and time. True or untrue to you?
10We all got hi on protons and electrons dude, it was the bomb... then chris farley lit his esoteric fart and the big bang just happened... Great question, start astral traveling and explore this vast universe.
11Your universe ends the second you die... or does it. I guess there is only one way to find out... or is there.

Welcome god

God?

Tuesday 26th June 2007 | 04:47 AM

haha:) nice one mate, i like your sense of humor!

but in case you misunderstood (or rather, if other people reading this misunderstand):
This list of questions, are just common questions that i've often heard. I was just summing up, to prove my point.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 26th June 2007 | 10:32 AM

Of course, of course... BTW, it's great to be talking directly to god. if I beleived in you... I'm sure it would be a whole lot more wholesome though!

annie

Sunday 8th July 2007 | 07:49 AM

Why is it that when we talk about religion we always talk about truth and the existence of a God!!!???? Humans are amazing things, but when it comes to Religion, our search for truth is the one thing that causes wars, arguments, heated discussions.

Must we proove everything exsts?!?!!?

Albert

Monday 16th July 2007 | 05:58 PM

"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man." --Albert Einstein

Jason

Monday 16th July 2007 | 07:33 PM

@ Albert

See Franken's comment earlier into the thread:

"Einstein was an atheist and is a well documented fact. From the 1st page of his autobiography notes:

"Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude... has never left me."

And in 1954 he also wrote:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

That clearly settles the issue."

buddha

Monday 6th August 2007 | 11:47 AM

religion was used as a form of government in times when government wasnt strong enough. that is an extremely simplified version of it but it is true. in medieval times you were excommunicated from the church and furthermore society. they came up with the commandments and pillars of faith, et cetera, to keep order in society. heaven was (to some it still is) is the ultimate reward for living a good life. heaven was the incentive. hell was the balls of it all making people belief they have to live a good life or they live in damnation forever. it is all bull shit. people need to stop believing and start thinking. im not ignorant and going to say that religion is wrong. i think people should just think more.

Gilly

Monday 24th September 2007 | 03:55 PM

Atheism aint a dirty word but Belief surely is


http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=17210

Jake

Tuesday 25th September 2007 | 10:36 AM

While this movie looks objectively good, I'll reserve judgement untill I see it. I can only hope that being an evangelical christian will not skew this guy towards making a creationism propoganda movie.

Gilly

Wednesday 26th September 2007 | 09:29 PM

Topic Topic Topic
Its not about Evolution Vs Creation its about acceptance across the board. Mike started it with his "Whoe poor I, the Atheist"
It happens to EVERYONE EVERYWHERE.

You still Dont get it yet!

Jake

Thursday 27th September 2007 | 02:36 PM

As I said gilly, I will reserve judgement until it comes out.

Luis

Monday 14th January 2008 | 10:38 AM

This is actually a good article. But why end with someone else's quotation, after writing such original piece.

Mikey

Wednesday 16th January 2008 | 08:57 AM

Thanks Luis.

I thought Dawkins' quote summed up my position appropriately. I did actually toss and turn over adding it but opted to do it in the end obviously.

Thanks for reading.

FJ Harry

Wednesday 16th January 2008 | 08:35 PM

Spot on. You POV is a rare but much needed change these days and I hope it works out for you. Marvellous stuff.

noafterlife

Wednesday 30th January 2008 | 05:02 PM

As an atheist, I haven't found the need to shout it out loud to people who believe in god(s), but the more crap I see going down in the world directly related to religions, the more I think atheists need to stand up and tell the world that there is no god. Personally, I believe that one of the biggest injustices the western world allows is to allow religion in schools. This is truly brainwashing our next generation.

Jake

Thursday 31st January 2008 | 09:19 AM

@ noafterlife

It is only brainwashing when you are taught that there is only one way and not to question it.

In my opinion, as I've stated before, children should be taught all religion, or all points of view. There is some good moral and ethical teachings behind the very thick layers of dogma and theology that comprise of religion.

If you are taught only one way and not to question it, that is injustice, if you are taught all ways and question everything, that is insight.

JK Samuel

Saturday 16th February 2008 | 04:06 PM

You sir, deserve a medal for easily the best written article on this topic. This is mandatory reading. I hope its working out for you.

JK Samuel.

Thursday 21st February 2008 | 11:20 PM

Thanks for sharing! I'm sure your kids will turn out just fine be they religious or not.

James

Saturday 23rd February 2008 | 04:40 AM

This article and the following comments have been a very interesting read. I am a Christian (or maybe I should say I choose to follow Christ's teachings, since "Christian" means A LOT of other things these days...)

I just want to add a thought in regards to Mike's view that children should be taught all different religions and possibilities so they can choose.

I can see how this theory would seem attractive to someone like yourself who is an atheist and therefore does not believe there is an afterlife... so if your child chooses to be a Christian and that helps them live a moral life (let's hope it does) then what's the harm? Its all good. And if they choose not to believe (but still live a good moral life) then, hey, everything's great.

But put yourself in my shoes for a minute, if you are an atheist... just for a moment pretend to be me. I firmly believe that God exists and that Jesus Christ is our connection and path to God, and that we as human beings have a soul that is eternal and when our bodies die we will not cease to exist. What happens to us depends on our view of Jesus Christ and what actually happened when he died on the cross.

So up until this point I know that at least Mike will say "Ok, that is TOTALLY fine for you to believe that for yourself". Correct, Mike?

Alright, so again, assuming you are me, consider the fact that if I truly believe the above statements (and I do), then LOGICALLY it would be terribly irresponsible of me to not teach my kids (all 3 of them) what I believe. I love them so much that I can't possibly tell them "try it all" because I BELIEVE that the other options are not true. Why would I offer other inferior alternatives.

Someone in the comments above for some reason took my position to the extreme level of implying that we "religious people" would say "Believe what I believe or ELSE!". Nothing could be further from the truth. I have told my kids on multiple occasions, "No matter what you do in life, what choices you make, what mistakes you make, I will ALWAYS love you because you are my child."

So you may say (like I would about the Buddhist teaching his kids to be Buddhists), that I am WRONG in believing what I do, and am passing wrong information to my kids, but you have to understand that my motivation is completely pure and wanting only the best for my kids. I am not trying to "force" or "coerce" or "condemn", just teach what I believe is the best way.

Thoughts?

Mikey

Saturday 23rd February 2008 | 09:13 PM

Hi James.

Ultimately I am not concerned which path my children take as I know that having good parents they are going to turn out as good as they can. I guess my main idea here is that if I were to force them down the path of atheism I have taken, I would be no better than the parents who force Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc onto their children.

Like you said, I will love them no matter what, but I couldn't live with myself knowing I had forced them into a particular way of thinking.

In your last comment you are suggesting that as long as the parents have the best interest of the child at heart, then it's OK. That is absolutely fine as long as the child still has real freedom of choice. If he/she ever starts questioning or looking into other religions or chooses not to follow any at all, then the parent must accept the fact.

Thanks for raising an interesting point.

Ian Olson

Tuesday 26th February 2008 | 11:00 PM

It's a positive approach that sounds crazy enough to work. Good blog just bookmarked. Thanks.

Warren

Wednesday 5th March 2008 | 06:58 PM

...in response to this comment by Luis. Ditto.

Broklynite

Tuesday 1st April 2008 | 12:35 PM

"Alright, so again, assuming you are me, consider the fact that if I truly believe the above statements (and I do), then LOGICALLY it would be terribly irresponsible of me to not teach my kids (all 3 of them) what I believe. I love them so much that I can't possibly tell them "try it all" because I BELIEVE that the other options are not true. Why would I offer other inferior alternatives.

Someone in the comments above for some reason took my position to the extreme level of implying that we "religious people" would say "Believe what I believe or ELSE!". Nothing could be further from the truth. I have told my kids on multiple occasions, "No matter what you do in life, what choices you make, what mistakes you make, I will ALWAYS love you because you are my child."

So you may say (like I would about the Buddhist teaching his kids to be Buddhists), that I am WRONG in believing what I do, and am passing wrong information to my kids, but you have to understand that my motivation is completely pure and wanting only the best for my kids. I am not trying to "force" or "coerce" or "condemn", just teach what I believe is the best way. "


Hate to tell you, but telling your kids that no matter hwat they do yu'll love them is a tricky thing since it can be "This is teh right and only way but if you don't believe that, I'll still love you." effectivly guilting kids into it. I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying I've seen it. Personally, I grew up in an atheist household. I know what I could believe in god if I wanted and my parents wouldn't hold it against me. But understand when I say I was raised in an atheist household that I do not mean that I was told at every turn that god did not exist. Instead, god simply never managed to work his way into our conversations, or was ever used as an explanation for a question I had. I came upon the concept of a god late in life, by which time, I examined the idea and threw it away after due consideration. Please understand, I don't criticize your upbringing of your children- I'm in no position to since I don't know you. But I think that the point is more that whether or not you believe something to be true that you don't necessarily tell your children that it is a fact if they ask you outright. You can say that it is what you believe. But don't lie to your kids.

Moving right along, it occurs to me as somewhat humorous upon reflection that the same people who insist that I teach an alternative theory to evolution because I have to present multiple (their) viewpoints never seem themselves to teach other (my own) viewpoints.

Jake

Tuesday 1st April 2008 | 01:27 PM

...in response to this comment by Broklynite. Your intentions as you put it are subjectively pure, i.e. you look at what you're doing and say that you have the best and most pure of intentions, but I look at it and say that you are limiting your childs field of vision.

Even before I formally defected from christianity, I found it important to show my kids that there was no right and wrong way, that they really needed to find their own answers, if indeed they thought finding answers were important.

Ones religion or religious view is personal and thus is fundamentally flawed when instilled (forcefully or not) in a childs mind. I would like to think that if, in the future, my children decided to become religious, I would be accepting. They know that I do not believe in gods etc and that I am not supersticious as a consequence, and they know why, but I would certainly not tell them that they should believe as I do, nor would I assert that just because I believe thus, that it is "the gospel truth".

Broklynite

Tuesday 1st April 2008 | 02:09 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake. I absolutely agree. The first three paragraphs of my last comment were quoting James above (forgot to put that in). Only the last two bits were me. Yes, I absolutely agree- I'd rather let my kids make their own decisions. As long as that doesn't include roasting Papa over a hot fire on a spit, then I'm okay with whatever they go for.

As I said, god was never an issue at home. Curiously enough as a consequence (although it might be because I am slow about these things) I went to sunday school and parochial school (not bad for a Jew, eh?) but mostly didn't have a clue what was going on around me (except that whatever came out of my mouth seemed to drive the nuns into mouth-frothing fury).

Off topic and addressing this to the world at large, for the record, Creationism isn't science. Please don't pretend it is. As a scientist, it's kind of insulting. As Asimov put it, Creationism makes a Theory sound like something you came up with after having been drunk the night before.

Dr Matt

Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 02:45 AM

When one helps out a friend, one is acting on the suspicion that no all-powerful all-knowing all-merciful super-father in the sky will help them out. Being helpful and kind is intrinsically an act of secular humanism. There are strong threads of secular humanism running through major religions, contradicting many of their main premises.

I don't have time for ritualized mystical BDSM. I have things to do for the benefit of real people.

Kim OJ

Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 06:37 AM

...in response to this comment by Dr Matt. Interesting point. But expecting God not to help out could be an insight into God's reasoning rather than his existence.

Jake

Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 06:59 AM

...in response to this comment by Kim OJ. Regardless of that insight, it completely undermines all religion as the notion of a 'personal god'.

Kim OJ

Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 07:04 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake. I am not sure what you mean?
Also the person helping the other could very well consider them selves an agent of God, if which case there is no conflict.

Jake

Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 07:11 AM

...in response to this comment by Kim OJ. You're being quite subjective with that statement. More likely the guy might just be a realist/humanist and help because that is what he would want if it were him in the situation.

Most theologies subscribe to the notion that every person has some personal attachment/relationship with the deity. This, in my opinion, is why people pray, i.e. they believe that their deity is 'listening' and capable of answering their prayer/s.

Kim OJ

Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 07:43 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake. So if you admit that both a theist and an atheist interpretation is possible, it is not really a strong argument for atheism.
I do not understand why you think a personal relationship with God is undermining of religion?

Jake

Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 08:45 AM

...in response to this comment by Kim OJ. I muddled my words, sorry, I'm writing a report at the same time.

To your first point, atheism needs no arguments for or against it. It is not organised and does not require any belief or faith. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods etc based on the total lack of critical evidence to support such a belief. There is no doctrine or edict, code of conduct or subscription to a theology. To me, labling something as supernatural just because you can't explain it is insulting your own intelligence... but that is only my assertion.

To me, if you help someone, you are simply undertaking something that you would hope to happen to you if you were in the same situation. Some people call it karma, others would call it devine intervention, again, I find the labeling of natural occurences as supernatural an insult to ones intelligence... but again, that is just me.

Broklynite

Sunday 6th April 2008 | 04:11 AM

Speaking as an atheist, I do find it somewhat upsetting/insulting when an act of kindness is taken for trying to score brownie points with god. I also dislike the idea that people do kind and good things not because they are trying to be good or kind, but as a way of buying their way into heaven. As I said, I'm an atheist and don't believe in any gods, but if I were a god, I would be somewhat disgusted with people trying to essentially bribe their way into a happy afterlife. And people who argue that religion defines good, evil, and morality are people I disagree with. I am culturally a Jew, but do not feel bound by any of the rules or traditions. I don't need a several thousand year old book to tell me how to live. This does not mean I automatically reject anything it says. SOme of the things I find quite reasonable. There is the idea in Judaism that when you do a charitable act, it should be done anonymously so that the charity is done purely for the sake f helping others and not simply to make people admire you for your great kindness. I always rather liked this, espcially since it links back to my first point.

eric

Sunday 6th April 2008 | 08:34 AM

very interesting blog.

i am an athiest married to a christian, and we have taken the same approach with regards to religion our children. they are free to explore whatever religion they want to (incedently, i was raised the same way). the toughest part for me has been the in-laws and others (including, as we found out later, teachers in their preschool) constantly trying to shove religion down their throats from a very young age.

Kim OJ

Sunday 6th April 2008 | 11:46 AM

...in response to this comment by eric. That's just messed up! You cannot even send your children to preschool without having them corrupted!

Jake

Monday 7th April 2008 | 06:16 AM

I had serious problems with it being taught at my daughter's public primary school. Many times I met with her teachers and principal who refused to see any reason in teaching about all religion or none, not just christianity. I wrote several letters to local, state and federal members of parliment and all to no avail.

After looking around for a while we ironically found that the best solution was a catholic school. While they obviously teach religion, they teach it from a more open perspective and analyse all major religions (including bhuddism) as part of their curriculum.

Broklynite

Friday 11th April 2008 | 11:43 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake. Catholic school has apparently changed since I went there is all I can say.

Jake

Friday 11th April 2008 | 11:57 AM

...in response to this comment by Broklynite. Indeed, it has changed tremendously. The year after I completed, corporal punishment was outlawed.

The Movie Whore

Friday 11th April 2008 | 03:24 PM

Some one has to say it and really it is only appropriate for a movie whore to say it. but I think they got the message of the movie Dogma. No religion has it exactly right and it's better to have ideas then beliefs. Of course I find that atheism has its own faith of sorts. Not to be insulting towards atheists. That is not my intent at all. But in my humble opinion any atheist that says the theory of evolution which has yet to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is the only answer is taking step of faith. Now that step of faith has nothing to do with believing in a god or not. It does have to do with believing in something we really don't know for sure.

stiffy

Tuesday 15th April 2008 | 01:33 PM

aetheism is unscientific.
according to the scientific method, you believe only what you can prove in a laboratory. Since you can't prove God doesn't exist, then claiming there isn't a God is an unscientific position. The belief that there is no God falls into the arena of personal belief, a faith of sorts.... claiming agnosticism is a much more intellectually derived belief. it leaves room for undiscovered possibilities, and doesn't shut the mind off with pre-conceived notions one way or the other.

all creation testifies to His majesty and genius. you have already received all the proof neccessary.

Science

Thursday 17th April 2008 | 04:36 AM

...in response to this comment by stiffy. You fail at science.

When you say "God exists" the burden of proof falls in your hands, likewise when i say "there is an pink teakettle i orbit around Saturn" the burden of proof falls to me and until proven true will be considered a false statement.

You really should consider looking up "the scientific method" it's quite easy to understand.

Gillon

Monday 21st April 2008 | 02:22 AM

Oh my…. I have followed this for some time. There have been some pretty good things said, many of them coming from Michael, but, make no mistake, others as well.

It’s difficult for me, as an Atheist, to not want to stir the pot. I think I am going to bullet this one out.The following has been edited for excessive ranting, mean remarks, poor keyboardsmanship, bad grammar, and stupid stuff that I just cant help sometimes.

• Just because words are posted on the internet does not equate with preaching one’s atheist moral beliefs.
• I choose not to read the bible, just as anyone can choose to not read a blog.
• I value my life, as it’s the only one I will ever have.
• I do not steal, murder, rape, or commit crimes because I do not believe it is the right thing to do.
• I grew up in an Atheist household, and was told that I could go to or not go to any church I wanted. And though they are compost now, I love my parents for leaving it to me.
• Somebody should use their spell checker.
• To believe that you have a “personal relationship with god” is the very height of arrogance.
• I did not need all of my moral or behavioral standards to be taught to me. I watched, listened, learned, and developed not only a fairly high standard for myself, but also the heart to serve others. Somehow without the help of the bible or it’s thumpers.
• I don’t “hate” anyone, but if I did, I’d bet they would be believers. Wait a second, there is a politician in the United States that I hate. He talks to god.
• I liked what Missy had to say…Good work M.O. Well thought our and assembled.
• The Christians-and their ilk-ARE out to get me, and as many others as they can. God needs my money.
• Faith/smaith
• Who gave Christians the right to claim good moral values as “Christian Standards?”
• Rollo May once said: “The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it is conformity.”
• Being a Christian is Un-cool, why turn off big hunks of your brain?
• It never occurred to me that I might be able to “buy insurance” just in case there was a god, by doing the right thing. See “To Sir With Love” (1967)
• “Atheists don’t have any standards!” That’s close to the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.
• I’m going straight to hell, see ya’ there.
• I’m sorry about this one, I just couldn’t resist.
• “What’s the most you’ve ever lost in a coin toss?”

https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=393#comm12475

Rob J. D.

Tuesday 22nd April 2008 | 07:14 PM

Well written guy. You have your head screwed on right.

Gina Squitieri

Monday 28th April 2008 | 11:19 AM

[ Note to self: Read. Learn. ]

Michael, you and many others here have been more than a little patient with some of us believers. Thank you. :)

Jake

Monday 28th April 2008 | 11:23 AM

...in response to this comment by Gina Squitieri. Patience is a virtue, baretta is a gun... both have their advantages.

Gina Squitieri

Monday 28th April 2008 | 11:46 AM

Ha!

Gina Squitieri

Tuesday 29th April 2008 | 01:24 PM

Michael, I thought of saying to you -- You'll simply have to pack your bags and move to the U.S. where there is freedom of religion.
That's what our constitution says--we have freedom *of* religion, so no one can be discriminated against for their religious beliefs.
Then I realized--that is not the same thing as freedom *from* religion. Therefore, I believe you shouldn't be discriminated against because you believe you don't need to believe. :D (I'd hire ya.)

Houser

Saturday 3rd May 2008 | 07:47 PM

...in response to this comment by Gilly. Could you be any more of a dumbass Gilly?

Gong

Saturday 3rd May 2008 | 08:34 PM

God made us in his own image.

this statement is proof of god's imperfection (if he exists)
if he is imperfect, he knows it, and he will doubt himself

Gilly...

Saturday 3rd May 2008 | 09:29 PM

..... was here,

But now she's gone,

She left her name to carry on,

If you see her,'

Keep on walkin,

That silly Gilly can't seem to evuh stop talkin!

For sure, first, she was her,

Then, she was another,

Then, she was yet another,

What a perve,

Talk about nerve,

But somebody here

Was actually somebody here,

So, needless to say, Gilly's no longer here.

(The end.)

Written by: Gina Squitieri

Copyrighted material.
Intellectual patent pending.
All rights reserved.

:D

Rodney

Saturday 3rd May 2008 | 11:47 PM

...in response to this comment by Gilly.... Gilly was (and probably still is) male, I'm afraid.

Gina Squitieri

Sunday 4th May 2008 | 01:35 AM

Oh.

Troy Jackson

Monday 30th June 2008 | 01:45 PM

...in response to this comment by eric. Eric: The world needs more people like you and I.

A fantastic blog post Mikey.

Mikey

Tuesday 29th July 2008 | 05:05 PM

...in response to this comment by Troy Jackson. Thanks Troy.

Limes Inferior

Wednesday 29th October 2008 | 02:56 PM

source: http://limesinferior.blogspot.com/2008/10/atheist-propaganda.html

I have stumbled upon yet another atheist propaganda clumsily disguised as a balanced article whose author pretends to be objective and friendly towards theists and their beliefs. Here are some excerpts with my "subtitles" showing what the author tried to smuggle, in between lines, to his readers' heads:



'Being openly atheist can have drawbacks for some of us. Your God fearing boss might not give you that promotion - or worse.'

Religions other than Atheism make people unethical.



'You are often confused as having God hatred. The ignorant think you belong to a cult.'

Atheists are bright. Theists? Not so much.



'But I am a man of reason and logic.'

Atheists are enlightened. Theists are backward and have huge problems with logic and rational thinking.



'If you say 'cows can fly' I will laugh heartily in your general direction but not completely dismiss you. Show me evidence of the orbiting bovine and I will take that laugh back.'

Theists' belief that God exists is laughable and on a par with statements like "cows can fly".



'You see by default everyone is born atheist in the technical sense of the word. Children are too young to understand the complexities of religion and what it means to believe in a God.'

Theists' beliefs are unnatural because people do not know nor understand them when we are born. If they were true, they would be natural, like atheism, which is natural and therefore true because we know that all babies both understand atheism and are atheists. Apart from the false belief in God, everything else in existence we don't know when we are born, like Physics and the laws of nature, is an exception to this rule and, as such, is true.



'I might add that unlike a lot of my God fearing friends'

Theists live their life in fear. The life of an atheist is better. Be free from fear!



'This isn't the dark ages after all. And besides, I would consider that a form of child abuse.'

Theists are child abusers still living in the dark ages. Atheists are different as they do not train their children to adhere to theist beliefs but allow them to "chose" atheist belief.



'I want my children to learn about God and read the Bible, and when they are old enough even explore other religions if they so desire.'

Atheists are better than theists, because they do not force anything on their children but rather allow them to study Bible and other religions from the atheist point of view (i.e. after children fully "understand" that all beliefs incompatible with Atheism are false).



'The reason I want my children to learn about religion is because although no-one can prove the existence of God to me, I on the other hand cannot 100% disprove the existence of God, even though every last shred of evidence would seem to.'

Not only are atheists the only people who were able to estimate the probability of non-existence of God (and, as such, can make legitimate evaluations of which belief is more probable and which is not) but there is overwhelming evidence (?!) clearly showing to any reasonable mind that there is no God.
No one could even try to prove the existence of God. On the other hand, though it is true that the author cannot FULLY disprove God but it does not mean that disproving God is impossible. Quite the opposite.



'This is what separates believers from atheists. Religious people will not allow for the possibility that God might not exist. If they did, then they are technically Agnostic.'

Atheists are open-minded. Theist are not. Theists who are open-minded stop being theists so, by definition, there are no open-minded theists. Open-minded atheists do not stop being atheists even when they become agnostic and stop claiming that there is no God.



'Science however acknowledges the possibility of God however remote, because good science is about the collection of evidence to support theories, and the subsequent process of trying to disprove said theories.'

There is no God and Science knows it, but it needs to acknowledge the possibility of God to be able to prove its impossibility ;). Atheists do not need to wait for Science to disprove anything because they know the truth and Science will also, eventually, learn that truth.



'When my children get older they will naturally follow what they believe or disbelieve, and I will want it to be their choice - not mine or anyone else's.'

Unlike theists, atheists are good for their children because they allow them to "choose" atheism while theists, in contrast, force their children to choose theism.



'They (children) are too young to understand now but one day they will thank me for it.'

Atheists' children are too young to understand why they have to become atheists but it is for their own good and, since atheism is so much superior to theism, they will eventually feel grateful. Let us remind everyone here that theists' children are abused and forced to believe in theism! No one would be grateful for something like that!



'The chances are high you were doctrined into the same religion as your parents.'

All belief systems other than atheism are guilty of brainwashing their younglings. Atheism is different. Atheism is all about free will and the freedom of choice.



'You could argue the same can be said for atheists - that they need to have experienced religion before simply discarding it. That may be an overstatement, because you could say 'how do you know you wouldn't like Nazism if you haven't tried it?' - as there are some things we can all be certain of without trying.'

All religion (apart from Atheism) is as despicable as Nazism and people should not try it because even without trying it is obvious that it is better for them to be atheists.



'But religion differs in that there is a common theme of peace, harmony, enlightenment etc...and one main difference of course being the Deity in question. Jehovah? Ganesh? Christna? Yet some people will kill in the name of rather than concede there may be more than one God.'

Theists are dangerous hypocrites - they tell you lies about peace and harmony but what their religions are really about is killing and deception. And, of course, there is no God because all belief systems other than Atheism differ between themselves. Oh and Pol Pot did not used to murder families of theists who did not want to become atheists because he was a fanatical atheist but because he was evil. By the way, crusaders and popes were killing other theists not because popes and crusaders were evil but because theism implicates killing and suffering.



'But I like to think that this generation (my generation) might be a little more open minded when it comes to religion.'

Theists are so close-minded. If you want to be cool you have to become an atheist. Choose the bright future, not the gloomy past!



'If we don't keep asking the question, we will be slaves to the religious concept forever without knowing an alternative.'

All theists are blind slaves. Atheists are different because they do not believe in some unproven superstitious nonsense but in scientifically proven truth revealed to all atheists.



'Partly as a 'guess what?' to those who didn't know this about me, and also for anyone who might be afraid to explore atheism.'

Explore atheism or everyone will think you are a coward!



'The mere fact you are questioning religion says you are probably more open minded than your religious colleagues.'

So you are questioning your religion? Good boy...
No? Better start questioning it or everyone will know you are a norrow-minded fool!

Rodney

Wednesday 29th October 2008 | 04:25 PM

...in response to this comment by Limes Inferior. Wow.

What are the odds that someone who thinks rustylime has inferior articles would come from a blog called limesinferior?

Mikey

Wednesday 29th October 2008 | 07:14 PM

LOL what are the odds?

Jake

Thursday 30th October 2008 | 07:50 AM

...in response to this comment by Limes Inferior. You have CLEARLY put an inappropriate spin on just about every point that the author of the original article made.

The original post was clearly a light hearted analysis of the rationalle behind one persons lack of belief and you have twisted it into theist propoganda.

All that you have shown with your retort is your complete and utter contempt for Atheism and this Author's thoughts on religion. You have clearly shown that an opinion outside of your own is invalid. That sir makes you a bigot.

Shame on you, shame on you, you small minded bigot.

johann schreier

Monday 3rd November 2008 | 01:23 PM

@all the fundamentalists: Sorry to burst your bubble, guys, but Limes Inferior was 100% right. I am so sick and tired of hearing always the same BS from atheists. And I am not even a religious person! Seriously, it sickens even an agnostic like me which means a lot because agnostics, by definition, usually don't care. Everytime I see an atheist I hear the same blah. Give us a break, will you! There is a nice article explaining in detail why you are just a bunch of religious fundamentalists: http://diogenes999.blogspot.com/2005/04/on-bashing-of-dead-popes.html

@Jake: And you sir are the worst. You behave like a spoilt brat who likes to kick others but as soon as they kick back bursts into tears and crawls back to his mommy to complain that he was unfairly treated. Disgusting.

@Limes Inferior: You should post more often to your blog. I read your other posts. Very true and even more interesting than the one posted here but there were like three of them in total. Put more heart into it!

Mikey

Monday 3rd November 2008 | 01:38 PM

Funny thing.. I posted a comment on the article on the Limes Inferior site last week. It never got approved by the mod (it would have been the only comment there).

Anyway, I just explained that there was nothing 'in between the lines' as suggested. I guess the Limes Inferior author didn't want to listen to an opinion that didn't match his own. Even if that opinion is regarding an article written by me.

The Grongler

Sunday 18th January 2009 | 09:16 PM

Bravo and amen. If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people.

grinder

Sunday 6th February 2011 | 05:16 AM

...in response to this comment by The Grongler. If there were no religious people there would be no atheists. Only agnostics would remain.

Henk V.

Sunday 6th February 2011 | 10:02 PM

huh?

next

Henk V

Sunday 6th February 2011 | 10:12 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake. I think the point about atheism is to not be a theist.

Whilst RD is a strident atheist and an even more strident skeptic (which makes him a nihilist by any definition) his lectures miss the whole basis of certain religions. He quite often points out minutiae from religious texts.

Personally, i think this leaves him open to criticism from the lunatic fringe we normally refer to as 2 sigma of the population.

I used to say I read the bible a lot because of the credo "know you enemy". I don't say that any more. I now say its the most concise series of papers on the establishment of a nation. Its a pity some Romans lent some credence to the twaddle in the last few gospels and letters. It was all there in the stuff compiled by Ezra, why repeat it in terms of some jesus guy?