Saturday, 4 July 2009

Why I Think Atheism Is Bullshit

It seems to me that people are finding it easier and easier to give religion a coupla barrels whenever they feel the need and it's usually done like "guess what I said to THIS fuck knuckle today", and not taking the time to consider those around them.

It seems to me that this has come about since 2001. THe Christian and Islam slant on current events seems to have given them a set of testicles where previously they were firmly planted around their lower bowel. For sure Atheism has been around since the Greek Gods condemned them, but lately it's cool, or something, to hurt others.

Not taking a direct shot at you Stu. It's just a symptom of bigger things.

I think some people think I'm some sorta religious freak, which I'm not, I'm more in the 'considerate of others' camp. If you want a run down of where I'm at, consider me "treat those as you wish to be treated". People making blantant comments that I KNOW would make someone else be uncomfortable gets my back up. Doesn't really matter who says what....either way, it's rude. Say what you want say in your own blog, but publicly, unless of course all those around agree to discuss it, don't. To me, making statements that can hurt is NO DIFFERENT to being racist in a public forum.

To me, it's just straight out intollerant and arrogant.

And those comments nearly always comes from the Atheists. Who are hypocrites, IMO.

Anyway, I was gonna do a thing where I described the chances of the Universe accidentally happening so as to be able to handle life. What the chances ACTUALLY are for an enzyme to happen accidentally and THEN that a cell needs 2000 of those accidental enzymes etc etc. I'm not stating God created the universe, but maths itself makes it almost impossible for things to just happen. There are BILLIONS of things that needed to accidentally happen IN ORDER for us to be here.

SO someone convince me why Atheism is right. Why are you Atheist and not Agnostic?. Something was proven to you to make you land in that camp. Without attacking religion, convince me. I won't take "Aww but it just doesn't make sense" arguments.

I'll don my pocket protector and thinky hat and leave the cross in the drawer.

I think there's more evidence of creation, than evolution.



  1. Mate you have made a blanket comment about ignorance and intolerance.
    You have just done what you condemned.
    I have yet to see an atheist make a comment that has not been equal to the same level of vitriol from the religious camp in some fashion or another.

    1. That's because you're trying not to look for it friend.

      A) He didn't say make a blanket statement about ignorance and intolerance. He said you should be mindful of the thoughts of others in a public forum. This is his own blog. You came to his doorstep, likely by typing in "Atheism" and then willingly clicking on a link that said "Atheism is bullshit."

      If a Christian had googled "Religion is bullshit" and clicked on such a link, the act of doing so was him saying "I give permission for you to express your opinion to me, even if it offends me." And so it is for Atheists as well.

      I've noticed far more examples of Bill Maher-style Atheists who think nothing of trashing the beliefs of others and making sweeping generalizations about ALL theists, then I have noticed Christians doing the same thing. Christians tend to be "turn the other cheek" types, although they DO hold opinions regarding faith and morality that I can understand you would dislike. I have yet to see a Christian walk up to a crowd of people and start bagging on Atheism just for shits and giggles (unless he's a street minister, in which case he IS one of the annoying theists). The key point is that it's a question of percentage. How many oppressive atheists vs oppressive theists. Any honest individual will tell you that the former camp has the greater percentage of A-holes, hands down. If you're an atheist who does NOT act like them however, I'll always acknowledge your existence. And thank you for it.

  2. Well, I'm not ignorant of Atheism. I probably know more about science than I do about religion. I'm tolerant of Atheists. I don't actively go out of my way to vilify them. I get your point, and acknowledge it. But I don't raised the issue unless raised by others. I'm also entitled to an opinion in my blog. I stated they are too.

    I'm equally anti religious nut jobs doing the same.

    I'm more interested in why Atheists believe they are right. I'm not real interested in "well they did this".

  3. Mate i don't believe that i'm right, i just believe that i live just as good a life and am just as fulfilled having no religion in it as those that do.

    Dunno where the evidence for creation over evolution is, plenty of blind faith, but no evidence.


    1. religion,,,fairy stories

    2. ^You lie like a dog.

    3. If you hate this blog, then get the hell off of it.

  4. Also don't know why i should have to convince you of anything, you have your beliefs i'll have mine, but its my right to believe that i'm right, regardless of your beliefs. I also have no right to say definitively that you are wrong.

  5. "Dunno where the evidence for creation over evolution is, plenty of blind faith, but no evidence."

    There's a difference between 'proof' and 'evidence', IMO. Evidence is stating facts and figures which add up to an opinion. Proof is proof, and I agree, there's little, if any, of that.

    Said it on Twitter, but you don't have to convince me. Just laying it out for people to give their evidence.

    Bet it won't go much past attacks....but I've got faith in Doc. This whole post, including comments, I believe will be evidence in the my belief in the title.

    The title was bait.

  6. I'm not going to speak to the is 'there a God or isn't there' part of the post. That's your deal, your frame of reference, and your right to believe or not believe in. What I'm going to speak to is the 'well it's incredibly unlikely that life occurred, and it did, therefore we were created' argument. This is unconvincing at best, and a dismal intellectual cop-out at worst. Life exists on this planet at this time because it could. The conditions were right. The nature of biological systems is to self-aggregate and complexify - recreating the 'primordial soup' of billions of years ago under lab conditions, small simple 'building blocks' begin forming larger, more complex polymers. And so on and so on. I'm not going to recapitulate the whole tale here because I've had fk all sleep and Monster v2 need changing. But if you do actually want to learn about it I can steer you towards some materials. Don't look on the net, it's about as accurate as Brett Lee.

    As for evolution... there's only 4096 characters per post so I'll keep my comments brief. Anyone who claims to know anything of science and yet chooses not to accept evolution as scientific 'fact' - or as near to it as science can get - actually knows nothing of science at all. Put it this way. Our understanding of evolution is such that we can identify it, can follow it through generations, can see it working, can recapitulate it in a test tube, and have a working, functioning, well-understood mechanism for how evolution works. We don't even have a working, functioning, well-understood mechanism for how GRAVITY works. Yet I don't see too many peeps advocating Intelligent Falling in place of Satan's abomination, the Theory of Gravity. Apart from the Onion of course.

  7. AND you have broadly indicated that to be a Christian means to completely deny evolution.

  8. No, not really. OR that wasn't how I intended it. Things evolve. Things evolve and adapt. Some may argue EVOLVING is part of the miracle of creationism.

  9. Doc ~

    To me, the illogical nature of faith makes more sense than shit happening by accident - just going by the math. Maybe that's more indicative of the weird shit rumbling through my head than anything else.

    I get Agnostics, I relate to that and grasp what their argument is, even if many are merely hedging their bets either way. I don't get the concept of Atheism. It's illogical to me, and that's basing my understanding on it's own science. To me, Atheism is knowing there's no deity. Which is oxymoronic me. Atheism is based on evidence. To me, like I said, the evidence I've seen leads me to believe in design.

  10. By whatever miracle - scientific or religous - that has made it possible for me to exist. I am happy.

    For whatever reason I can look around me and see beauty - man made or natural - I am thankful.

    For the ability to live, laugh and love, I am grateful.

    THAT, people, is what matters.

  11. Agreed, Daze. Doesn't mean we can't question though. Someone once told me that if you can't question the teacher then they don't teach; they preach. Not sure if that was a shot at religion or not, but I got the concept. To 'preach' is to 'sermon' stand, and rant. They aren't teaching you anything...well, they are, but nothing that they would be hoping for.

    I accept the things I've got. I have been, and am, in situations where the importance of 'now' is tantamount, even if I take those things for granted sometimes. It's something you never forget tho.

    If you're happy with what you know then that's great. Part of me is jealous. But to me, I can't exist without logging questions about how and why. It's just what makes me tick just as much as contentment makes you tick. Hopefully one day I can find that same mental peace.

  12. Who says Atheism is based on evidence? Religion sure as heck isn't. Believing the world was flat was based on local knowledge, and not subsequent world travel. A scientish whose name escapes me said "everything we understand is science, everything else is God" or something very close to that.

    I choose to disbelive in God, but how is saying it insulting to anyone, unless someone has an exceedingly thin skin?

  13. Hey Doug, how ya going?.

    Having a belief isn't insulting, Doug. It's how you voice that belief that is the issue. I'd need to search some archives that some of us frequent to give you examples, but I can't be bothered.

    "Who says Atheism is based on evidence?"

    A belief without evidence is faith, isn't it?.

  14. Sometimes I believe that I am God!

  15. Semantics and pedantry, Moko. Tsk :-)
    This is fun.

    Well duh, Lerm :D

  16. Sometimes I believe you're a God too Lerm.

    Doug ~ Yeah, it's meant in a fun way. I enjoy talking about it. Least everyone - (other than Uamada) - has been adult about it, so far.

  17. I dont believe......I KNOW I AM A GOD!

  18. Didn't take you for a man of faith, I mean, there's no evidence of that, so its GOTTA BE faith, doesn't it?.

    Jees, the internet isn't big enough for all the Gods in here.

  19. The first thing that moved me to atheism was my interpretion of people. Everyone is sacred if the unknown to varying degrees and even in the modern world there are still plenty of unknowns. Religion is a way of explaining the without subjecting your explanation to the rigors of testing that a scienctific theory goes through.
    Every civilisation has had a form of relgion that serves to explain the basic unknowns, where, when & why are we here. Why does the sun rise every day and what do the stars mean?
    Unfortunately some religous leaders have seen that fear is a great way to control and manipulated religious explanation to aid them in that purpose.
    So the core of my beliefs is that people have trouble excepting that things happen that they can't explain.

  20. I am a bit ambivalent when it comes to personal faith. My problem is that, about 20 years ago, God came to me in a dream (I'm not kidding about this one, mate; I wish I were) and told me that He does not exist. I argued for a bit about the contradiction of appearing to me just to tell me He doesn't exist, but God said "I can't help you with that. I'm just here to tell you I don't exist." He suggested it could be nothing more than a psychotic episode. We argued about it a bit more, but I couldn't persuade God that He existed, and that was that.

    So I am sort of on a mission from God to deny His/Her existence. In all honesty, I haven't done a very good job of it. I write often about being Greek Orthodox, and tomorrow I will attend church with my son. But twenty years later, I still don't understand what happened that night.

    I've considered that it is some kind of test, but that presumes the existence of a God that conducts such tests, which I have on very good authority doesn't happen. From what I know of similar events described in various religious texts, those honored with such an experience - the victims of such celestial practical jokes - are not supposed or required to understand.

    In any event, there it is, for what it is worth.

  21. I am not a God. But damn it, I want to be God.

  22. As I’ve left a couple of comments expressing my non-believer views over on KCL in the last few days, I couldn’t help but wonder (somewhat egotistically, I admit) if I’d prompted this post. I probably didn’t, since I (a) carefully prefaced my comments in such a way as to make it clear I was not trying to be personally offensive, and (b) stated that I was an agnostic rather than an atheist (accepting that there is a limit to any human knowledge or understanding). But since I don’t believe in any gods, which makes me an atheist by literal definition, and don’t regard creationism as more likely than evolution, here we go anyway.

    Because I’m lazy, what follows is a slightly edited version of what I left in the aforementioned comments, in particular addressing the creation vs evolution debate. I’ve split it over two comments here because I’m not sure about permitted comment lengths here at Blogger.

    Consider the commonly-used argument: The world is too complex for it to have come into existence spontaneously, therefore it must have been created by an even more complex being or power.

    The problem of how a complex system can come into being has been increased, not decreased. Unless you can explain where the divine power came from, this does not make the existence of the universe more credible; it makes it more incredible.

    Besides, there are many things the human mind can’t comprehend, irrespective of whether there is a supreme being or not. We can’t understand how time can have a beginning, nor can we understand how time can have no beginning, yet one must be true: similarly we cannot understand how space can have boundaries, outside which there is nothing, nor can we understand how space can go on endlessly. Believing in a divine power doesn’t help us grasp these elementary concepts. Saying that the universe seems incredibly complex, or beautiful, or remarkable is a purely subjective, human viewpoint.

    Of religions generally, there is no incontrovertible evidence to suggest the existence of any of the many gods that have populated the human world: on the contrary, such evidence is invariably inconsistent and often contradictory. People have utterly believed in mutually exclusive gods for thousands of years: if there were only one divine power (which is a requirement of most religions), why is/was there evidence for so many?

  23. Of Christianity specifically, there are many points that strain credulity: the generally held belief is that God created mankind imperfectly, by making man inherently sinful, or at least to have proclivities that are ‘abominable’. Why did he create man with the capacity to be evil? If sin is so terrible, why did God introduce it? Apparently there is to be no sin in heaven, so the ‘free will’ argument cannot apply, even supposing it made any sense in the first place.

    We are told that God, having had several thousand years to do so, realised that it was impossible for anyone to get into heaven under his rules, so he created a demi-god who was to be tortured to death as a scapegoat for man’s inherently sinful nature (a propensity God designed in the first place), and anyone who believed in him would automatically go to heaven. Why not just forgive everyone automatically, since it was his own fault that man is sinful?

    Most Christians believe that God is loving, though there doesn’t seem to be any evidence either in the Bible or in the real world to support this. Indeed God appears to be remarkably vindictive, especially in the Old Testament. To wipe out almost all life on Earth because not enough people are worshiping him seems pretty harsh to me – but perhaps I’m missing something. As most people have observed, the world is a very imperfect place, full of suffering in the form of disease, hunger and death. We’re told that our intangible souls are immortal, and will live forever in a place that will have no pain and no sin. What bother with the middle bit? Why not start off with heaven? It only makes sense if you’re living in the world and are trying to find some hope or redemption. Of course this doesn’t constitute proof that God doesn’t exist, just that he’s remarkably cruel and/or incompetent, but to anyone who’s studied other mythologies and religions of the world, it just goes to show that man has a deep-seated desire to believe in gods and an afterlife.

  24. Go Simon! Go Simon! *said Ricky Lake style*

    Actually he kind of touches on another reason for my atheism that I hope don't find too offensive. That is that if there is a god then it is doing a pretty crap job which is kind of contrary to my idea of a god.

  25. Naut ~ Couldn't agree more. Except for the bit about people believing for lack of scientific reasoning. I subjected my excuse for a faith to scientific reasoning and came up with, "Yep, still makes more sense".

    Paul ~ Rightio, fair enough. lol

    Al ~ You will be mate, you will be. Just tell the big guy to piss off when ya get there.

    Simon ~ No, this post wasn't a result of you. I'm not sure what KCL is.

    I'm not sure that I have the credentials to speak for all of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and various other faiths and every theologist in regards to the shit in religion that doesn't make sense to you. I guess it's similar in regards to no one having really tackled my reasoning 'against' everything having all happened by accident. To me, laying down all that's wrong with faith isn't a compelling argument against it. It just means you've got questions. Just as much as I do.

    I guess the origins of a divine power is similar to my question of what came before the 'big bang'. I mean, if the universe was created as a result of a chemical reaction where did those chemicals come from and what were they in....and what triggered the explosion...

    Personally, I struggle with the Bible. I get the vibe and am fairly comfy with its 'rules of engagement'. To me it seems COMPLETELY naive to suggest that through time it hasn't been altered to suit what has been proven as fucken harsh doctrine of many in history. I believe that in a large portion of history the Bible was only available to the privaledged few - (who happen to have agendas) - that ruled. Faith has been used against the faithful for ever. Islam seems to be copping a full serve of it at the moment. Not saying that as a way out of discussion, just saying I'm not convinced the Bible is what it seems....personally. Grain of salt, and all that.

  26. Naut ~ I guess my when it comes to things like 'If there is a God why do people die', and shit. What works FOR ME is that God isn't responsible for the death of people, our own fallibility is, our decisions and actions as a species is. God doesn't make people drink and drive etc.

    Perhaps yours and my idea of a God isn't as we'd assume, or expect it to be. Bit like life really. But still, arguing against something isn't the same as arguing for it.

  27. *isn't the same as arguing for an opposing view.

  28. I won't argue for or against but what I will say is that if everyone followed what you said Moko which was basically "do unto others as you'd have done to you" this world would be a Utopia.

    Also I think that Atheists biggest argument is something I used to question my preacher Grandpa about....."Where are the dinosaurs in the bible?"

    He never could give me a good answer on that and also "how was the entire world populated by one man and one woman?" I think it's the theology that trips up alot of folks belief patterns.

    Many will say you should'nt question these things because it's a matter of faith. I personally don't think God would have given us logic and reason if he didn't want us to use them.

    I've known a few atheists in my life and they have told me that they would love to believe there is some deity that controls everything and that when you die you go to some miraculous afterlife.

    Some people NEED the beief in order to be decent....some people don't.

    What an atheist can never deny to me is that we all have an individual energy/spirit that makes us unique. I've been in the room with someone I loved very much when they died and in that moment after being in coma for five days, he opened his eyes and smiled widely during his last breath.

    I felt his energy pass through me and it was pure happiness in it's rawest form. In every drug I ever took as a youth, I've never felt that high before or since. Wherever his spirit/energy was going....he was thrilled about it.

    That's unarguable.

  29. Most definitely. Thanks for sharing.

  30. No prob. Hope it wasn't an over-share.

    What if it's just as simple as you control where your energy goes? Like if you believe there is an afterlife then that's the next plane of conciousness that you achieve. And if you think that when the lights go out, the show's over....then it is.

    I dunno, I was pretty stoned when I thought of that. I think it's the same night that I decided that our existance is just one of God's dreams. Needless to say, that was some pretty good shit.

  31. No, it's all good. Share what you will.

    Yeah, I've had some pretty fucked up epiphanies playing silly buggers. I sometimes wish I wrote them down at the time.....made PERFECT sense then.

  32. An Epicurean riddle :

    "If God is willing to prevent evil but not able to, he's not omnipotent.
    If he's able but not willing, then he's malevolent.
    If he's both able and willing, whence come evil ?
    If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God ?"

    No offence intended ...

    1. An Epicurean riddle :

      "If God is willing to prevent (an act) but not able to, he's not omnipotent.
      If he's able but not willing, then he's malevolent.
      If he's both able and willing, whence come (sn act) ?
      If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God ?"

      Define good and evil which must be absolutely stopped. And after defining that "good" and "evil", we could move on to "Why God doesn't stop it?"

  33. I am not suprised that a post about religion and atheism generated so many responses.

    For me atheism is a case of applying Occam's razor, for every improbable occurrence which created the universe such an improbability has to be greater to permit the existence of a god.

    This is a debate that has been ongoing and well documented, as you alluded all the way back to back the ancient world.

    One of the pivotal arguments for me is the one Bertram Russell raised in his article ‘Is There a God’ employing the celestial tea pot.

    This has since been used by atheists such as Carl Sagan with his ‘dragon in my garage’ and the Church of the Flying spaghetti monster. But in a nutshell Russell proposed the onus is not on the atheist to disprove the existence of god but for the theist to prove that god exists.

    His reason for this was the proposed celestial tea pot.

    “…If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time”.

    I don't expect to convince you by the argument, but for me this is the compelling reason why I call myself an atheist.

    But I am always happy to debate this with folk like you.

  34. Moko - "Except for the bit about people believing for lack of scientific reasoning. I subjected my excuse for a faith to scientific reasoning and came up with, "Yep, still makes more sense"." I guess that's a fundamental difference between us. When I apply scientific reasoning to religion I am far from convinced.

    Also "I guess my when it comes to things like 'If there is a God why do people die', and shit. What works FOR ME is that God isn't responsible for the death of people, our own fallibility is, our decisions and actions as a species is. God doesn't make people drink and drive etc.". I am sure we can both come up with situations where completely undeserving people have died and didn't Jesus die for our sins as a species?

    Heidi - "What an atheist can never deny to me is that we all have an individual energy/spirit that makes us unique." I am denying it. I don't believe in a spirit or soul or anything of that nature. I believe we have an intellect and is shaped by experience and hormones. It makes us individual, but is by no means mystical.

  35. Anon ~ Please put a name to the post next time. I kinda touched on what I reckon about that side of it. But I think with 'free will' comes consequences.

    Barnes ~ I get the point, and was a big fan of Carl Sagan. Loved his shows. In the end, I think my concern with Atheism lays with many - not all - who are Atheists make a concerted effort make people of faith uncomfortable with who they are and what they find universal comfort in. Ridicule is really what they use. Quite obviously I don't have the answers, and really I could sit here, like Simon did - to make a point, not shooting at him - and highlight alls that wrong with faith. I get and understand where everyone is coming from and respect their views as I have the same sort of questions myself.

    You use the celestial tea pot. Here's my argument from my POV just to highlight what I'm seeing from many here.

    Okay, here's just a touch on what I'm thinking. For some reason I can't cut and paste today... *rolls eyes*

    Someone said that in order for an enzyme to be created accidentally it would take the equivalent odds as a cyclone going through a junkyard and creaing a fully functional 747. A cell needs 2000 enzymes. What are the chances?.

  36. Naut ~ I kinda made my point in regards to 'defending' faith. Quite obviously I don't have the answers or the credentials to give it a nudge. Still, no one has given anything other than 'well this doesn't make sense about faith'.

    How did the Universe spark off?.

  37. see I like my idea that the world that we know is just a funky school kids lunchbox left in the sun too long... :D

    as for god, im still on the fence there, dabbled with both sides and underneath, but just like a bad hair day, if i cant see it its not there...

    (until i have one of those bright and shiny miracle moments)

  38. Makes just as much sense as everybody elses suggestions. lol

  39. The idea of a God is just so much cooler, from the whole scifi-lovin optimist POV. Winkie Pratney even wrote a book comparing the ancient war between factions as described in the bible to the Star Wars saga which made eery sense.
    Given the choice of believing in alternate dimensions existing out of time with armies of archangels and beings fighting the ultimate eternal war between good and evil,makes the alternative proposal...uh, nothing...seem pretty boring.

  40. Valid point. Fuck loads of movies have a biblical vibe about them. Terminator, with John Connors (JC) being the saviour. Then all the Exorcisms, Omen, Dan Browns shit yadda yadda...

    Maybe we should paint everything grey and be mopey c*nts.

  41. Good set of questions, Moko, but ones that are pretty exhasuted by now. In a way it's kind of unbelievable that it's even a debate, but I guess there are some things you need to be clear on.

    First is that you're lumping myself, Yobbo, Gould, Sagan and Einstein in together with the likes of Richard Dawkins and Mr Stu there. I'm not sure you've detected a difference in the approaches of either of those camps, but if not there are some. It's another topic to go into detail on that, but you can refer to Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, or indeed Yobbo's peice above.

    Second - I don't think your distinction between atheism and agnosticism is a good one. Certainly many people who identify as agnostics may go along with it for the reasons you give, but equally many who identify as atheists would not. I'll explain.

    Agnosticism describes potentially two distinct positions. The "hard" version says that not only am I undecided on this issue, but I believe it's impossilbe to "know" the answer. I think that position is a bit of a crock, but that's just me. That leaves the "soft" position that you simply don't know whether there is or isn't an answer.

    I think there are merits to remaining undecided on issues. Taking a strong position without justification can could one's judgement. But sometimes that means lingering at a fork in the road of life's journey forever. Sometimes, without really having to deductively prove things are one way or the other, it is necessary to sum up for yourself what you honestly believe is the case. And you'll find that most people who identify as atheists, myself included, have done this exercise. The answer is not what you understand could or could not be true, but what you in fact believe is true. This isn't really a question of faith, except where is comes to determining whether you have any. For my part, it's more a question of balance of probabilities.

    And in fact while rejecting theism as such, I find I'm quite open to some very different interpretations of god, nature and other things. I can equally identify as "pantheist materialist" for instance, and I suggest you have a bit of a read about that particular position - if you're curious, anyway.

  42. Always curious, that's the point of the post.

    The questions still stand for me. They may have been tackled by all and sundry over millenia, or a few beers, but still, they stand valid for me. The questions I raised are just the tip of the Theist iceberg for me. They are just a couple without actually doing any REAL thinky stuff with it on here.

    Not real concerned about lumping anyone in the same slot. You all call yourselves Atheists then the one definition stands. Many Atheists ACTIVELY - (we've all read it) - denounced the existance of a 'higher being' but in the same breath actively pronounce their affinity towards Atheism where the argument is mirrored. In my understanding of the definition of Atheism, Atheists are convinced there is no God, or Gods. True?.

    You can't prove there isn't, and that's the main point of this. You can't disprove the existence of a God just as much as I can prove there is. Isn't that the same as faith?.

    I could sit here for a week and at the end have come up with a compelling case based on math and logic as EVIDENCE for design over accident. I'm sure you would dismiss those figures as 'passe' and inadvertantly describe Atheism as a vibe. Really, if you're 'balancing probabilities' I'd suggest you're more of a Agnostic.

    People like the Atheist Foundation of Au gives me the shits. Believe what you will, I don't give a fuck. So long as it doesn't hurt me or anyone else I couldn't care less. But while you're doing it, don't be a fucking hypocrite and blame ME for the actions of others who falsely profess what they do is done on behalf of me. Unless you see my fucking name etched in there somewhere chances are I didn't advocate for it and it's done off the bat of an agenda under a false umbrella. The problem I have with that foundation is their active vilification conquest.

    Still, no one can lay it out there.

  43. Sorry, thanks for the time and input. Much appreciated.

  44. ...and by 'you' in that last paragraph, I meant them at the foundation. They are fucktards. They dismiss Theism as unproven bullshit where they can't prove their beliefs just the same, but are agressive about it.

  45. To me, the definition of Atheism means that your belief needs to be quantified if you're going to ask that Theists quantify their beliefs. No one here has said 'There is no God' but still you define yourselves as Atheists. There is no degree of Theism, which most of you are lumping me in, but there IS degrees of disbelief. You might be able state as fact against the argument for a God which lumps you in as an Atheist, but then discuss lack of proof, or absolutes, which allows - for some fucken reason - a caveat in belief. TO me, if shit just doesn't make sense then you're not an Atheist.

  46. Hey Moko,

    I like to think we're all a happy jolly accident.

    Most things that have happened in my life have been accidents - so I don't find it hard to believe that the 13-odd billion years of our universe's existence simply came about through a series of accidents that eventually led to me being born.

    I like to call it "Clumsiesm". ;)

    There certainly are some righteous athiest types out there - but I can understand that. Religion's had the drop on being harsh and judgemental (in many cases) for a few thousand years, so I do understand the desire to point and say "What are you ON about, believer? Have you the BRAIN WORMS?" without being burnt at a stake.

    Here's a random point. Do animals have gods? I don't think even smarter animals like apes have ever shown signs of a belief system, or group worship, etc.

    Animals simply exist because they exist.

    Now I guess you can argue that we as humans know more because our brains are bigger, perhaps we are blessed by god, perhaps we have the ability to know god...

    But maybe we just exist because we exist. And our brains and questioning power is just another happy accident.

  47. Hey Nat. Yep, maybe you're right. Sure as shit we'll find out either way oneday.

  48. Shit i wish I'd seen this over the weekend.

    Ok at it's heart Athiesm is a belief in pure impirical science, cause proceeds effect yada yada yada.

    We're still pretty primative as a species and so we have real problms contemplting issues like deep time, dark matter, string theory and Nth dimensional space oh and the fact that we're in only one of possible many incarnations of our universe.

    Pure science is a very cold place and it doesn't allow for human emotions, thats where religion comes in. Every year we learn more and more about the universe and to be honest religion starts to fall by the wayside except as a set of behavoral/cultural rules and memes. Some of which are pretty barbaric when you come down to it.

    Moko I can understand if as a Christian you get hacked off by folks taking the piss out of your religious beliefs, however take a second to remember that not so long ago they'd have suffered physical and mental nastiness for theirs.

    I personnally can't see how any conciousness that is powerful enough to create the universe is going to give a rats arse about us here on earth. However I won't go out of my way to be malicicous to those who do, well maybe only to those buggers who knock on my door on a sunday morning....

  49. "Ok at it's heart Athiesm is a belief in pure impirical science, cause proceeds effect yada yada yada."

    I could check the online dictionary for the fourteenth time, but I believe Atheism relates to not believing in God. Many Atheists may also have an interest in science. Those particular people CONCLUDE there's no God using empirical evidence....but yeah...

    "...however take a second to remember that not so long ago they'd have suffered physical and mental nastiness for theirs."

    Yep, but that's not my fault. So it's okay to vilify people based on their race?. Racism's okay....?. Rhetorical really, I know you don't believe that, but now that we're all enlightened and shit we should be bigger than that.

    I should point out that 99% of people here make a genuine effort to respect others beliefs. With most in this thread I had NO IDEA they considered themselves Atheists.

    I hope all youse consider me respectful of yours. I notice no one - except Uamada....cough cough sonuvabitch cough ;o) - has called me a hypocrite. But that bullshit was based on personal opinion here and nowhere else. Anwya, rambling.

    I've set my dog on my fair share of fundi's too.

    Thanks for your time and input mate. Spewing you weren't here earlier. And who killed my fucking allies here?.....Jesus H Fucking Christ, I feel like I'm hanging naked perched on toilet seat with my nuts dangling waiting for any fucking passer-by to have a swing....

  50. Moko, your enzyme thing - I'm not going to go through all the many many MANY layers on which that's wrong, but believe me, it is. There is no fact in any part of that sentence. From the numbers involved to the way they are made to the way they are developed. Find whoever told you that story and slap them cos it's just not true.

  51. What came before the big bang?.

  52. Well, You will not get any argument from me my good man!. " Just upright & free men of mature age, sound judgement & strict morals". OK, so may well we don't fully live up to all those 100%, but after all, we are not Perfect, its why one might at some point confess their sins I guess.

    Hell, maybe its more and its MY, belief in a "Higher Being", plus The QUEEN.

  53. Moko, most atheism has come from science. Take marxism for example which was a primary anti-religious movement.

    Yeah i know where you're coming from about the 'not my fault' line, however in the end we are responsible for the 'sins' of our belief systems. Being the centre of mine means i can't dodge the results of my actions!!!! havock nice of you to mention me but call me a queen again and I deck you!

    As for what came before the big big bang i think theres alot of mileage in the theory that there ahve been many big bangs and each time the universe contracts back on itself goes super mega nova and spews it all out again.

  54. Good thinks. Thanks mate.
    And a golf clap for the high standard of polite & respectful replies.
    I'm an agnostic leaning heavily towards athiesm, but without proof - I know nothing. I can suspect, believe, intuit, or conclude all I like but until I have the facts before me I can't say I'm sure either way.

    One point about the genesis of life. I absolutely 100% percent agree that is an astonishingly unlikely eventuality - but it did here and it didn't elsewhere. That implies to me there are boundries beyond which the
    "astonishingly unlikely" will not eventuate. In a theistic cosmos no such rules would be as Dog could do what ever he/she or it wished.

    I find it almost beyond belief the current theories on species colonising other lands - eg insects to New Zealand. It would require not only one, but in fact a breeding pair to arrive in the new land within a fertile lifespan, with sufficient stamina to procreate, and within a geographic area that makes it possible. Each in turn a stunningly tiny likelihood - when combined - like flipping a thousand heads in two up. But over sufficient inhuman timescales, it is possible. I guess it must have as it did. Unless Dog done it.
    I think we also need to be wary of drawing on examples of one - low statistical valdity.
    If you follow me.

  55. Bravo Havock. Thanks for the time.

    Chaz ~ Science raised the issue of the birth of the universe. Are you responsible for the actions of the Australian government in regards to the Indigenous population?. I'm not Catholic, but that's like saying I'm answerable to the actions of the Pope through history if I was. Sorry, but nah.

    Alright, let's go back to the racism example. Is it okay to be racist towards the Japanese due to their treatment of allied prisoners of war?.

    Bob ~ Glad you enjoyed it, and I do follow you. As logical as Doc and equally appreciated. Cheers. And we all seem to respect eachother....except Uamada, who's an the civility is awesome. Quite surprising for such a long thread.

    As for the odds thing. The chances - (close your eyes Doc) - of shit lining up just right in regards to fricken protons or some shit is the equivalent covering north America in coins and stacking them high enough to reach the moon and getting someone to pick the red one out of the pile. 10 to the power of whatever. And that's the one with most chance of lining up right.

    It isn't just like dropping a coin off a building and killing someone type chance....we're talking everyone in your family winning lotto every week for the next fifty thousand generations type chances. And that's just ONE out of billions of things necessary. You get where I'm coming from, I'm sure. I'm coming from a position of faith and seeing those odds and I'm thinking I'm not sold on accidents.

    YEah, there's a chance shit happened accidentally, but there's more of a chance our universe extends as far as the rim of a petri dish on the desk of a Dr Yobbo in parallel universe number 9. I think we all agree that ultimately we all know fuck all about who we are and what we're about. My POV is just as valid as ANYONE elses in that regard. IMHO.

  56. You're just cranky i bitch slapped you in under 50 words....
    Your view is valid, that wasn't my point. And yes this blog is your Pulpit, you can preach any half arsed garbage here that manages to slither out of your throat.
    My point was more about ME holding YOU to a higher standard of argument than "Atheists are hypocrites". That may be my issue though, so i'm sorry.

  57. IT was originally called "Why I think Atheists are Fucktards". So I DID step up to the plate, somewhat. And it's probably closer to my arse than throat, but yeah, you're right again.

    I'm sorry, U.

  58. Good lord, I think they are going to kiss.

  59. OH for FUCK sake. I'm gunna have to do one on WHY THE Monarchy is better....fuck them Publicans ,,,,lol

  60. eww I think i'm going to sick up...

    Moko as to the culpability bit. Thanks to various legal decisions made in the past there is a certain precedent for us to be responsible for events occuring in the past that we did not enact ourselves.

    it's a bit skewed but basically if the state pays out on something that was a gorup action eg like germany did to israel a few deacdes ago then as tax payers raised that money they are paying and therefore could be construde as have a responsibility.

  61. Me learned collegue Me Boylan would be the one to clarify that though.

  62. i think the whole thing comes down to our need to explain absolutely FARKING everything... is it really that bad not knowing? ... some things should just be left alone...

  63. I suspected the issue is really about definitions. I *really* don't believe the thing you think of as god exists. If you say "faith" is what's behind belief, then that's specifically what I don't have.

    I can be more positivist about it - I do believe that the god thing that many people propose doesn't exist. But there's not a lot of difference between that and believing that Russell's celestial teapot doesn't exist. I don't need some special "faith" to disbelieve that. I'm not sure how clear the various points people have made about onus are, but understanding how onus applies is a first step, for me at least.

    I think you're a bit muddled here and above when you talk about evidence and proof. There's a difference between deductive proofs where things are definitively true under their own logic, and inductive proofs where you draw conclusions based on the evidence and your own understanding of how things might have happened. Absolute deduction only applies in the the world of pure mathematics and other formal systems that express a logic of their own. Theology was once considered such a system, so some confusion on that point applied at that time. Nearly everything else is inductive, and that's what I'm talking about when I say "balance of probabilities". Consider it as you would a legal case, basically.

    There are several quibbles I have with the things you've said here. When you talk about "accident", for instance, you might as well equally be saying that when you drop a pen, it falls to the ground be accident because the mechanics of the universe just happen to be that way. Yobbo can explain what we do in fact understand about the origins of life better than I can, but it's an equally strained example. It's entirely an accident of the way that chemical energy can be released by ignition in the form of gas expansion that your car actually works at all.

    You say that given time and enthusiasm you could construct a valid counterargument to evolution as the mechanism by which life has grown as diverse as it is, yet many people have indeed attempted just this and their arguments have been shown to be invalid, incorrect or even fraudulent. I expect at heart lies a misunderstanding about what science is for and what it does. That possibly the answers you need are not ones that science can provide. It's perfectly legitimate, IMHO, to turn to religion for those, but doing so does not invalidate the findings of scientific enquiry.

    Where you say what you regard as a "definition", of things like atheism and agnosticism, as I already suggested I think you're just mistaken about how deterministic you can be with labels like those. Effectively you are insisting that such and such a person "must" believe such and such a thing because "it seems" that this is what a thing they have said means. I am the master of what I believe, and when I say I identify as an atheist, and what I believe is different to your definition, it means there's something wrong with your definition, not that I am mistaken about this self-categorisation.

    The other thing is that you categorise me with Dawkins based on a shared position to one side of a very arbitrary line, yet you're objecting to being categorised with fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who also lie on your side of the line. In other words you're applying this category unevenly. No offense, but I think that's a bit of a crock, too.

  64. Don't believe I objected to it. Just stated that's how I believe it was.

  65. ...and thanks heaps for your input.

  66. Fair enough - and as I said, I mean no offense. Good thread, really.

  67. Moko there are things man was NOT meant to know, they usually invovle squidy faced things the size of skyscrapers with wings and rubbery skin. oh and buildings in basalt designed with non-euclidean geometry

  68. I'm going to have a stab at redefining Atheism from a belief in the non-existence of God to accepting that God doesn't exist.

    That may need work.

  69. Damian ~ None taken, and I enjoyed it too. Although I'm a fraction over it. lol

    Chaz ~ Agreed.

    Doug ~ Works for me. ;o)

  70. quote: ". There are BILLIONS of things that needed to accidentally happen IN ORDER for us to be here."

    ah my friend you are so right, as a math major (I dream three dimensional calculus) I find atheism more to do with rebellion against religious principles and ethics then actual mathematical support for the coming into existence of complex forms of matter for no reason from nothing and to nothing. The chances that a simple protein would evolve by itself are 1 in the power of every particle in the universe. The problem is not just the odds but the fact there isn't enough time for that to happen from the big bang onwards. And as much as atheists don't like it that is the best theory we have so far with actual real world evidence for its reality. Evidence for the 'many worlds theory' = zilch. Marvel comics don't count.

    Pardon the anon posting but I dont have much time to create or get onto the internet too often.


    1. With that posted, you're one of the atheists who I don't hate.

  71. Speaking as an athiest, I have no problems with religion itself. My quarrel lies with the people who use religion as a justification for all sorts of atrocities. Personally, I think that people too willingly go along unquestioningly with what a higher authority in their lives (not necessarily a religious one; this applies to the government too) tells them. I find that the one thing that angers me the most about people is that, too often, they're unwilling to ask questions - to think for themselves. After all, if you've got a brain, might as well use it.


    1. You're another atheist who I don't hate. It makes sick that there are so many atheists who are prejudiced against religion.

  72. First of all, I have never insulted any of my religious friends. ever. I think I am no better then them, and they are no better then me. We have discussions constantly, but i never insult what they believe. Because I dont care what they believe, since they arent committing genocide.

    Second, I am an Atheist because I dont like the idea that the universe was created specifically for us. The vastness of it all, and God still gives a care about the sins of some tiny insignificant apes from a tiny backwater planet. Try to imagine that the universe is random. Do you realize how beautiful that is? Everything is random. Those impossible "maths" you were speaking of? they happened. We werent created for a purpose. We simply are. I love it.

    1. In case I didn't tell you before, you're one of the atheists who I'm don't hate.

  73. This is my major issue with atheists. Assumptions about everyone's beliefs. I totally agree with you on your second point, and I'm a Christian.

  74. Re: Moko
    -Completely agree...
    Too many so-called (inane) arguments for choosing 'atheism;' of which, all things being considered, there really is - no such creature.

  75. Can't believe people are still reading this, and I thank you for doing so. I agree, too. Cheers.

  76. i do beleave in eveloution however i beleave in god as well because of quantum mechanics and the feeling i exist

    1. I believe that creationism and evolutionism go hand-in-hand.

  77. Go on atheists, please prove that there is no god! Can't answer that can you.

    My Faith is 100% solid.

    God bless us all regardless of faith, we are all equal and nothing will change that.

    1. You tell 'em, sir or ma'am!

  78. You better mean what this blog's about, Moko.


Please leave your name/handle with your comment. It's important to stand next to our thoughts.