At Least They’re Fucking Thinking
There is much yet to be said for the sound of religion dying. I doubt that anyone expected it to die with a whimper but what exactly is the sound of religious belief in its death throes?
It might actually sound like this summary I found:
What I mean by all the that is this: the intuition I’ve had for a long time, and grows stronger with every atheist I listen to, is that atheists have different goals than everybody else. One might be tempted to say that they seek truth, while believers seek comfort. I suggest this is false. What atheists seek is technical utility: they want information that allows us to predict the movement of stars, build a better mousetrap, solve equations. Their science helps them achieve this. But the actual truth of things may go well beyond this, and may even, at points, contradict this. And it may be that there are more important things than curing polio or building a rocket to Mars, such as morality, purpose, and the sense of the transcendent.
Redefine everything so that your magic belief seems okay. Define atheists as no better than yourself – atheism is a religion. Here we see a claim that wanting to know the truth is simply a utilitarian thing, not important for real questions. Then there is the thought put forward that maybe there is more to life than this, maybe there is stuff that contradicts utilitarian science and because the atheist doesn’t embrace the possibility they are lost or worse, wilfully stupid.
Well, for the theists who think this way there is some bad news. There is also a possibility that they worship the satan they fear so much. A possibility that we live in a simulation, a possibility that the god they choose is the wrong one… there are many possibilities and without evidence (pesky science) there is no way to know if any of them are true. They assume they know which one is true but HOW do they know? Damn, there is that science thing again, but they don’t like science. They would much rather play roulette with their guesses than to know the truth.
The good news is that at least more of them are starting to think about the problems that their religious belief poses. It’s a good sign.
myatheistlife 
Well said.
As you know, I’m an atheist, but I must admit I was amused by this article: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-18/dickson-tips-for-atheists/5397892
Might the tone of this article be a different harmony in the sound of a religion dying?
I’ve got a reply to that post in draft at the moment… hang on, sit down, grab a beverage…. LOL
Agreed. The noise is generated by the friction caused by them “thinking” about their beliefs.
I seem to be hearing that noise a lot more lately. It might just be a post-Easter spike, but I like the noise… strange, no?
Music to my ears!
The odd justifications which are not part of the normal Sunday pulpit paradox keep popping up as people have to justify their beliefs in light of learning more information from science and those dastardly atheists. It’s the sound we need to hear. I like blowing some dust into their gears … the sound gets better that way.
Mischievous goodness 🙂
“They assume they know which one is true but HOW do they know? Damn, there is that science thing again, but they don’t like science. They would much rather play roulette with their guesses than to know the truth.”
Or they could be like a certain arrogant commenter I’m currently dealing with, who says that while he can’t 100% prove that Christianity is the truth, that if people would just give up secularism his evidence would show that the Christian god exists beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also blames secularism in the US for gambling, abortion, adultery, the spread of STDs, sadistic porn, prostitution, leeches on the welfare system, the teaching of evolution instead of creationism (which he says are on equal footing scientifically), polyamorous/monogamous relationships (same as cheating to him), lack of gender differences/roles (which he sees as bad), homosexual marriages (again, bad), same sex couples being allowed to adopt, and the passing of anti-Christian laws/teaching anti-Christian rhetoric in the schools. I told him to check out talkorigins, he said it was biased against truth because 98% of scientists are atheist or agnostic and they want to render religion impotent.
When I point out that some of these things were started/are supported by Christians or that there are many types of Christians who wouldn’t agree wit him, he claims that just because someone believes in the Christian god, goes to church, and reads their bible doesn’t mean they’re a “real” Christian. I pointed out this is a fairly convenient use of the No True Scotsman Fallacy…he says it’s not because reasons.
Ugh, it’s beginning to hurt talking to this guy, just like when he was on my recent post about the harm of female-on-male rape and he said that women cannot rape men/boys…that I was getting “seduction” confused with “rape” because if a man has an erection he’s open to having sex. 😦
If anyone wants to try and explain science to him, or defend secularists, or just have something to read that will make you shake your head in awe and sadness, here;
You have yourself a real winner there. When their generation is gone I hope that their thinking dies with them.
That shouldn’t be an issue with this guy, as he has no plans for having children…sad thing is, there will *always* be backwards people like this. I understand that getting rid of bigoted traditions and religious beliefs can be hard to do if you’ve been ingrained with them all your life, but that just means that when you *do*, your victory over these ideals is that much sweeter.
I may still be Pagan, but I want the public sphere to be secular and unswayed by religious dogma and spiritual myths.
Very nicely put
Thanks. 🙂
You left the possibility that the universe is the work of a malevolent deity and all theists have been annoying him since.
I did mention the possibility that they are worshipping the satan… but you’re right, that it might be pissing of a real god was not mentioned LOL
they give themselves very small margin for error by thinking their particular religion is the one true one, forgetting that every religious person thinks that of her particular sect
@makagutu
Well…*most* religions think they are the “only way”. Not all. 😉
Agreed. My bad
I only have disdain and issue with those that are caustic to society…. paganism has not so far been caustic. This is what monotheists and others do not seem to understand. It’s as if they enjoy the corrosive elements of their religion.
Same here. One of the reasons I stopped being a Christian at 13 was (ironically) the fact that I no longer was being sent to a private Catholic school. Of course, my teachers were already “concerned” about me because I had Jewish and Hindu friends from my neighborhood…but the inconsistencies just become far too obvious when there’s so many messages/interpretations from 1 belief system.
When I am left to interpret the message of so many religions my interpretation is that they cannot all be right… but… they can all be wrong. The latter seems more probable than one of them being right.
Oh, absolutely! I could be utterly incorrect in my religious selection…as could other Pagans, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc etc. I fully acknowledge that the spiritual feelings I get from my practices could just be psychosomatic responses or mild self-hypnosis due to meditation. (I don’t believe in recreational drug use or drunkenness, so at least there’s no chance of mind altering from *that*).
But then, I also am not so arrogant to presume everyone should have my beliefs, or even any at all. Far better for someone to be moral than religious, imo.
And that is exactly why I only have problems with the caustic religions… it’s none of my business what you think of when your head hits the pillow or what ceremonies you make in private. If they make sense of the world for you and your world does not deny the truth uncovered with science then we are in harmony where it matters.
Which is why I’ve yet to get into any arguments with atheists… 🙂
Yes, it’s not likely to happen… most people just want to live and let live… perhaps loiter together in a nearby watering hole or dance hall…
Pretty much.
I think the first question that the atheist needs to ask himself is whether he observes any empirical evidence for the existence of Singularities?
Why would you say that should be the first question? I presume you are talking about the ‘big bang’ singularity, right?
Why do I _need_ to ask myself that?
Do you mean does each individual atheist observe empirical evidence for the big bang?
Are you daftly implying that if none can be observed currently that the big bang cannot be shown to have happened?
Are you further implying that only observable events can be shown to happen? If that is the case, there’s no evidence for a miracle working Jesus, nor any for miracles either.
It appears that you are unaware of how the ‘big bang’ theory came to be. It wasn’t a wild guess.
No… I didn’t ask you if you have observed empirical evidence for the “Big Bang,” I asked if you had observed any empirical evidence for the existence of Singularities? Is the “Big Bang” the only defined Singularity?
Technically, there is empirical evidence for the existence of singularities as referenced in physics. The center of black holes counts as a singularity. To answer your questions then: yes and no, in that order.
Would you agree that conceptually The Perfect God and The Perfect Man are Singularities?
In other words, how do you incorporate Kurzweil’s concept of “Singularity” (unforeseeable process) or answer the evidence that “matter/energy” can escape the “black hole” and so the notion of said “black hole” comprising a “singularity” must be in dispute?
Are unique one time universe-wide material configurations “singularities?”
What are Singularities other than NOT redundant phenomena?
Like I said, as referenced by physics. The word itself, like many others, has multiple uses. In the use I referenced the center of a black hole is a singularity.
Kurzwell’s singularity is a different use of the same root principle.
The big bang singularity came before the big bang.
If you want to conflate the various uses of the word as having the same exact meaning I believe the grammar nazis will get you.
I want to know if you believe you exist within a regress that extends back to nothing?
Meaning, do you exist within a paradigm where only redundant phenomena exist so that “singularities” are just needed assumptions?
Again, is The Perfect God a Singularity? If not, why not?
Is the Perfect Man a Singularity? If not, why not?
What limits YOUR definition of a Singularity?
If matter/energy has been observed to escape a “black hole” then does not the rationale in defining said “black hole” as a “singularity” collapse?
I asked why you think it should be the first question I ask myself. You did not answer.
No, the regress does not go back to nothing in my understanding. Singularities as used in physics do not require nothing before them. That is one perception of the big bang but it appears to be a wrong one.
There are no perfect gods, there are no gods, and there are no perfect men. Perfection is a subjective term which makes it unachievable in this regard.
The singularity of physics is where matter is infinitely dense or something really close to that. A definition is merely that, a description of what a word means. Singularity is used in several ways, each changing the definition slightly.
The fact that energy escapes a black hole does not infer that the center is not itself nearly infinitely dense.
Kurzwell’s singularity relies on the numeric meaning of the word, a point in time that marks the transition from human intelligence being the superior intelligence on this planet.
Further on the regress. I’ve written about this several times. The KCA depends on a regress back to nothingness, a void with no matter or energy or existence. I do not believe that is a natural order of things. We tend to think of space as nothing but it is not nothing. To assume that somewhere there is complete nothing is an assumption that has no supporting evidence.
The universe that we know may have come from a place where time as we know it does not exist, where matter is not matter as we know it, where everything is different and only in this bubble are the laws expressed as we know them. This does not mean there was nothingness before the big bang. It just doesn’t have to be anything we currently understand.
Matter is a form of energy. Where did the energy come from? That’s the question we all look for an answer for. There is no reason to think it came from a god. That would just be asserting magic where none is needed.
Well… This is where the atheist starts…
There is no Perfection… There is no objective Supremacy… Anti-Supremacist… Believer in “equality” of something or rather…
Those who let the atheist believe in “nothing” are letting them off the hook… Even atheist can’t agree on believing in “nothing.”
So what is an atheist?
I say, he is an anti-Supremacist. Denier of The Singularity.
What this means is that an atheist paradigm has us caught in a regress back to nothing as merely redundant phenomena, i.e., non-singularities.
Hey! I actually found you because I needed a pic of burning witch for my video. We probably won’t see eye to eye on everything but I respect all views & started a channel to advocate for INTELLECT plus faith. Starting with sex talks but excited to move onto science/global warming and try to convince Christians it’s not a sin to have a brain
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Xf6ScN9riYhTOUsvhkhaw