God is Part of the 1 Percent

Angry GodVia Eric Allen Bell:

Once upon a time a very, very angry man named “god” created the world, got pissed off at everybody and killed them all with a flood, except for his buddy Noah and his 2 live crew.

Later God decided everyone is so lame that he chose his “chosen people” to give a plot of real estate to while telling everyone else to fuck off, ordered some ethnic cleansings to clear out the area and so forth.

Still finding nearly all people to be unbearable (and who can blame him, really?) this god person decided, out of the kindness of his heart, to send his only son to be brutally tortured and savagely murdered so that he won’t have to send us all into a lake of hell fire for all eternity …

More on Eric Allen Bell

186 Comments on "God is Part of the 1 Percent"

  1. If a man named “god” did that, it would be pretty messed up.  But God is not a man, he is the creator of man.  If you decided to get rid of one of the web pages of your web site, then no one would say that you were wrong to do so, because you are the creator of this site.  The most common mistake in evaluating the Bible is trying to understand it outside the context of Genesis 1.  I like this site, but Christian bashing is not part of the pursuit of truth.

  2. If a man named “god” did that, it would be pretty messed up.  But God is not a man, he is the creator of man.  If you decided to get rid of one of the web pages of your web site, then no one would say that you were wrong to do so, because you are the creator of this site.  The most common mistake in evaluating the Bible is trying to understand it outside the context of Genesis 1.  I like this site, but Christian bashing is not part of the pursuit of truth.

  3. If a man named “god” did that, it would be pretty messed up.  But God is not a man, he is the creator of man.  If you decided to get rid of one of the web pages of your web site, then no one would say that you were wrong to do so, because you are the creator of this site.  The most common mistake in evaluating the Bible is trying to understand it outside the context of Genesis 1.  I like this site, but Christian bashing is not part of the pursuit of truth.

  4. If a man named “god” did that, it would be pretty messed up.  But God is not a man, he is the creator of man.  If you decided to get rid of one of the web pages of your web site, then no one would say that you were wrong to do so, because you are the creator of this site.  The most common mistake in evaluating the Bible is trying to understand it outside the context of Genesis 1.  I like this site, but Christian bashing is not part of the pursuit of truth.

    • Blueoktober | Oct 23, 2011 at 8:42 am |

       Christians do nothing but bash.  And yo base your ate on a figment.  You base your genocide on a myth that has passed down 1000s of years.  There were at least 10 “gods” before your Christian God that did the exact same things and had the exact same profile.  But you’re too fucking weak to understand that.  Let’s look at it the other way.  God can murder people any time he wants and force you to live with it.  So Disinfo can post anything they want (as a “GOD” of their site) and you can leave with it or fuck off.

      • You missed the point.  A creator killing the creation is not murder.  Disinfo can post anything he wants and I will live with it.  But disinfo also provides me with a comment box encouraging me to voice my opinion.  Christians bash like it is going out of style and they shouldn’t if they want to claim to be a truth movement.  So you could direct my comment at both Christians and Disinfo. 

        • jasonpaulhayes | Oct 23, 2011 at 9:12 am |

          Christianity is a catch all term for many religions that as Penn Gillette pointed out in a recent episode of his VidCast “Penn Point” has served to create a base for a group of otherwise infighting sub-sects that represent a variety of moral codes and views on foreign and domestic policy. Rampant infighting is essentially the reason why many conflicting religious texts from around the world have undergone omission, revision and consolidation … in much the same way the Holy Bible has undergone revisions at assemblies such as The Council of Nicaea.

        • ” A creator killing the creation is not murder.”
          This is why my wife and I support parents rights to murder their children.

          • Tinytemper | Oct 24, 2011 at 10:41 am |

            Your children are actually property of God according to these wackos.  Therefore sacrificing your children to God is acceptable, as shown in the Bible.  God loves Him some blood!

          • Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 9:56 am |

            reference on that one Tiny?

          • Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 9:55 am |

            So you are pro choice?

      • I feel my comment mostly addressed the issue of the flood.  What about the genocide which God ordered for man to carry out?  I have to admit that I do not have a full understanding of why God would have chosen that course of action over another more peaceful solution.  It does not seem to ring in harmony with “Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Matthew 5:9

        • It makes sense in the context of it being a political expedient to claim that God told you to do it to get your followers to go through with it. If you consider it from a pragmatic perspective, it makes perfect sense. Either Moses’s god was a royal bastard or Moses claimed his god told him to do things but it was a lie to keep political power over a group of people. The second choice there seems most likely but it doesn’t paint Moses in such a great light either then. One of them was a real ass.

          Hm. Tangent: I every time I typed “god” above, I first typed “gold” and had to correct it. Not intentional but kind of appropriate.

        • Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 9:55 am |

          Like the more peaceful solution being attempted with the Palestinians?  Sometimes people are so far gone that there is nothing left to do but destroy them.  Should we have taken a more peaceful approach with the Japanese or Germany in WWII?  Do you really hold the belief that the taking a human life could never be justified…especially by an all powerful being?

          • > Sometimes people are so far gone that there is nothing left to do but destroy them.

            I don’t think that’s a Christlike attitude at all.

      • wow every time I read your ridiculous comments, it makes me laugh even more. “Christians do nothing but bash” umm you should really read your posts. I am just saying. What Christian has ever said I am perfect? I promise you, no Christian has ever said that, but I appreciate you putting us Christians on a higher level, 😀

    • Tinytemper | Oct 23, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

      > The most common mistake in evaluating the Bible is trying to understand it outside the context of Genesis 1.

      Ahh, like comparing God killing a human to a web administrator removing a page?  Not out of context at all there.  I think the Illuminati might have it right: Abrahamists worship an evil god, but they are too brainwashed to see it.  Time to man up and reclaim your soul.

    •  actually it kind of is.  Until we get past these ancient superstition we will never get any further as a society.

      • Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 9:59 am |

        Like overcoming slavery?  The belief that all of us are equal?  Atheism taken to its logical conclusion leads to biological heroism, yes there are plenty of traps set in the absence of the transcendent as well Potter.

  5. I need to be a member of his blog site to comment? XD no thanks…

    it’s always a bummer when people mix up GOD with the bible some other man made tale…. as if man could draw a picture of God with language or colors.
    http://media.photobucket.com/image/understanding%20god%20motivational%20poster/Cophet/1204447436631.jpg

  6. I need to be a member of his blog site to comment? XD no thanks…

    it’s always a bummer when people mix up GOD with the bible some other man made tale…. as if man could draw a picture of God with language or colors.
    http://media.photobucket.com/image/understanding%20god%20motivational%20poster/Cophet/1204447436631.jpg

  7. I need to be a member of his blog site to comment? XD no thanks…

    it’s always a bummer when people mix up GOD with the bible some other man made tale…. as if man could draw a picture of God with language or colors.
    http://media.photobucket.com/image/understanding%20god%20motivational%20poster/Cophet/1204447436631.jpg

  8. I need to be a member of his blog site to comment? XD no thanks…

    it’s always a bummer when people mix up GOD with the bible some other man made tale…. as if man could draw a picture of God with language or colors.
    http://media.photobucket.com/image/understanding%20god%20motivational%20poster/Cophet/1204447436631.jpg

  9. I need to be a member of his blog site to comment? XD no thanks…

    it’s always a bummer when people mix up GOD with the bible some other man made tale…. as if man could draw a picture of God with language or colors.
    http://media.photobucket.com/image/understanding%20god%20motivational%20poster/Cophet/1204447436631.jpg

  10. I need to be a member of his blog site to comment? XD no thanks…

    it’s always a bummer when people mix up GOD with the bible some other man made tale…. as if man could draw a picture of God with language or colors.
    http://media.photobucket.com/image/understanding%20god%20motivational%20poster/Cophet/1204447436631.jpg

    • Blueoktober | Oct 23, 2011 at 8:40 am |

      Which God would that be?  Mithra?  Oh oh oh Im sorry, YOUR God, the ONLY God to you ignorant sheep!  My bad!!

      • Word Eater | Oct 23, 2011 at 9:35 am |

        My God, your God, any god is only a personal interpretation of an ideal Creator Thing that exists outside of our reality.
        With that in mind, any person can define it anyway they want to and it is equally valid.
        That doesn’t make it “true”, only valid, something to meditate on.
        I wouldn’t recommend founding nations or murdering hundreds of thousands of people based on it, but as a personal guideline and philosophy, I have no problem with it.

      • wow dude, way to show off your insecurities =[
        I thought it was pretty obvious (Word Eater seemed to understand just fine) that I was making the claim: God is not understandable. People that claim to know what God wants, that God is capable of “disliking” or “favoring” one over another, or that God doesn’t exist are just making faith based claims. Atheism is just as much faith based as Christianity and makes just as little sense. Anyone with an actual interest in the subject studies life, drugs, death, physics, philosophy, and many other schools. In the end you come to see there is something, but undefinable. There are rules, but they are persistent, not enforced.
        Men kill men, God has nothing to do with our fallacies.

        • Stephen Norman | Oct 23, 2011 at 3:21 pm |

          Atheism is not based on any faith at all.  The prefix “a” is the obvious giveaway here.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any theistic dimension.  It’s unclear how this could be based on faith, since there’s nothing being posited.  It’s also unclear how it could be a nonsensical mental state.  

          Let’s take electricity.  An electrician explains to you how the wiring in your house works.  Do you at that point have any reason to suddenly believe that fairies are also involved in electricity somehow?  No.  THAT would make no sense.  THAT’S what throwing God/theism into a belief system is, it’s positing the unnecessary.  

          “In the end you come to see there is something, but undefinable.”  Really?  That’s what God is?  That’s completely vacuous.  Meaningless flim flam.  I was raised a Christian, delved into the occult, mysticism, new Age paganism during adolescence, studied philosophy in college . . . and, no, you’re wrong, I didn’t come to your conclusions; I’m an atheist.  I don’t deny the possibilities, but the mere possibility of something is no justification for actual, positive belief.  Neither is some “whoa, like, feeling deep inside, man” any justification.If you actually had any familiarity with philosophy you’d realize that calling something undefinable is garbage.  As soon as you describe something as indescribable, define something as undefinable you’ve contradicted yourself.  This sort of mumbo jumbo has no place in a real philosophical investigation of reality.  Philosophy is not bookstore metaphysics, it’s an exhaustive analytic enterprise.

          • Everything is based on some belief. You can’t have nonbelief by itself. If you disbelieve in God, it is because you hold other beliefs that rule out or lead you to be disinclined toward a belief in God. You are always positing something. This is true for all supposed nonbeliefs, and thus makes the definition of atheism as “lack of belief in any theistic dimension” meaningless at best, and destructive to conversation at worst.

          • Like a child’s beleif in Santa claus or the Easter bunny. Eventually we all grow up and learn to form our own opinions. Like faith, we don’t have to be told when we feel something isn’t believable, it’s just there..right? If anything the belief is cast aside from the hypocracy and force feeding of this garbage people call god. So in a way your right I don’t believe in God because I believe those that do are assclowns..Maybe not assclowns, but they should certainly be confined to live in the south 😉 Please try to take that as literally as possible.

          • You get the general gist of what I was saying…I think.

            I just never thought that “those people are assclowns” is a particularly good reason for confining people to one part of the country.

            To each his own, I guess.

          • awww come on..We could put them in reservations like the American Indians..Give em casinos and substandard housing..okay this joke is going nowhere…please tip your waitress

          • (in reply to Stephen/Heath)
            you guys both make good points, I don’t want to come across as arguing, but it’s very difficult to get these kinds of esoteric ideas across in a few lines of roman characters, you’re obviously smart enough to understand what I mean by that. Atheism is totally faith based from my experience though, maybe not for you personally Stephen, I’m sorry for making such a broad category, but that’s what everyone else is doing, grouping anyone who believes in God with the bible, etc, etc. It’s not the best way to go about things but it speeds it all up.

            I say atheism is faith based, mainly because I listened to a great lecture on the topic some 16 months ago, but also because that’s really what it is for most people. It is a “belief” therefor faith founded, if not based. I “believe” in a higher presence of unimaginable power and unfathomable depth that has NOTHING to do with Christianity or ANY religious text that I’ve ever come across (unless you want to call the Tao Te Ching or the Go Rin no Syo religious which would be pretty ludicrous). And admit gladly that a large portion of that is faith based as I’ve never shaken hands with this supreme “being”… but to ignore all paranormal research in all of its flavors including physics and medicine and to come to the conclusion that there “must not” be a God is making a faith based claim, or in other words an unproven statement. I’m doing the same thing since no one else is in my boots, so I can’t bash on anyone for being atheist or Christian or whatever. But people that wave their arms around and try REALLY hard to belittle people just for thinking different than themselves really don’t have any place any where.

            Then again the top post with an outstanding vote count compared to the rest is the one guy ranting “I am so sick of you self righteous assholes and your God shit,” so I’m clearly not posting on the right intertubes.

            I just wish people could learn to accept that a lot of people that believe in God don’t believe in the Christian God, or the Muslim God, or whatever other crazy angry shallow small-minded power mongering fear based ruler in the sky the media blares about 24/7. There are plenty of intelligent people within and without of the religious institutions happy to talk about their beliefs if you can get past calling them asshats before even asking them any serious questions…

          • Stephen Norman | Oct 29, 2011 at 6:27 am |

            “but to ignore all paranormal research in all of its flavors including physics and medicine and to come to the conclusion that there “must not” be a God is making a faith based claim, or in other words an unproven statement.”

            I’ve yet to come across anything other than personal accounts that imply God’s existence.  All the paranormal research I’ve read can be either be explained by psychology or lacks any evidence that would justify any belief on my part.  And I do read it.  Since I was a boy I’ve been obsessed with alien abduction literature.  I read it as folklore, however.  People making claims about God just doesn’t seem to me to be enough to suggest anything remotely approaching likelihood/existence/high-probability.  So, in my mind, there’s nothing to refute.  I don’t have to base the conclusion, if I’ve made one at all, on any faith at all, because I’ve never encountered a sufficient reason to consider otherwise.

            As far as your last paragraph, I understand what you’re saying and I empathize.  I wish people could learn to accept that many atheists aren’t just being pricks or just religious about science or unfeeling, joyless snobs.  We just can’t see what’s convinced the theists to be theists.

          • So my lack of belief in Santa Claus is based in what kind of “faith” exactly? Belief in something is irrelevant. If there’s no scientific evidence for it, and it can’t affect the world, it’s irrelevant.

            The absence of belief does not posit belief.

          • I didn’t say faith. I said belief (faith can serve the purpose I’m going
            for, but is too prone to equivocation by people who want to claim that
            atheism requires no faith). Belief means accepting some proposition as true.

            You have already proved my
            point, however. You say “If there’s no scientific evidence for it, and
            it can’t affect the world, it’s irrelevant.”

            Evidentialism–the
            belief that everything must be supported by evidence–and logical
            positivism–the belief that the only valid knowledge is
            “scientific”–are the two (major) beliefs you hold. These are required
            for your atheism (you could have atheism separate from these, but it
            would be a completely different kind of atheism).

            You have to believe something in order to disbelieve something. If you don’t accept this, then you have not examined your own belief system enough.

          • all things are true, false, and meaningless. Your idea of true and false hold you to them. If you can not have a middle ground then you are right, for you. “Everything is based on some belief” is circular knowledge. I would argue that i believe in that which i interact with(sight,sound,taste,hear,touch,thought), i could not interact with these things unless i believed in them. That is as far as belief goes for me though. Once we start talking about unicorns and “real thoughts” you can stop having belief and non-belief and enter a middle ground. I and many others have called it fantasy and dreams. I don’t have to believe or disbelieve in this realm of fantasy, i can choose a middle ground or be born outside it without knowledge of it. Having no knowledge allows me to not have a belief or non-belief in your idea.

             A persons belief in a god makes it real in a lovecraftian view and a persons non-belief in the same entity dose not strengthen it but rather weakens it and to have no view at all abolishes the idea completely. “you are always positioning something” is only relavent to what is being poisitioned, so you can’t make that your grounds for proof that your idea is Real. If a dark age occurs again all of your meaning is gone and so your beliefs, look to feral children. Belief on the idea level is not inherant to us, it is a conversation started a few thousand years ago. The world however in its billions years past and billion years future will still be here with or without your ideas of belief. And that is the middle ground, take yourself out of the equation and look at the universe. 

            In basic terms you are taking peoples idea of “i don’t know” and throwing them into I don’t believe which is not true for many of us. Or you take a persons view of “i don’t know” and throwing them into i might believe and that again is not the same.

          • You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

            I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

            Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

            The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

          • you don’t understand becuase you have no knowledge of it. And yes you can take yourself out of the equation, because you mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. get your head out of your own ass.

          • First things first, don’t be asshole–reply with one post. Second, learn how to spell.

            Third, learn how to argue and read arguments. I’m not saying anything about trees falling or the stuff that happens outside of your brain (small though it may be, in your case). I’m talking about belief and non-belief. I’m talking purely about what goes on in the mind.

            You can’t take yourself out of the equation, because the second you do that, you are in a state we refer to as “dead.” Your heart has ceased beating, your brain has stopped functioning, and “you,” as you, are incapable of doing anything. You can only understand anything you claim to through the being called “you.” This has nothing to do with how the world is outside of you.

            Seeing, however, as this is a waste of my time, I would advise you to try to understand the eight sentences in the past three paragraphs, as they are, in general, of small enough size for a person of your mental stature. Then, after that, I would look at my other posts and reread them–slowly, of course, so that you don’t confuse yourself with that eager mind of yours. Then, I would go read some philosophy, so that I didn’t  subtract from the total knowledge of humanity by speaking and typing.

            After that, I’d go eat dinner. Because that’s how long it would probably take you.

          • your argument only works if your special.

          • the universe exist with or without you

          • “Everything is based on some belief”

          • ok igot it, a tree falling in the woods makes no sound if your not around?

          • Stephen Norman | Oct 29, 2011 at 5:39 am |

            I agree that a person is always positing something, but I disagree with your last sentence so much that I’m almost offended.  It IS absolutely worth reiterating the semantics of atheism and other nonbeliefs, because otherwise there are an infinite amount nonbeliefs-as-belief.  Considering everything possible all the time, THAT would be destructive to conversation.

            Do I believe in Santa? No. Well, what does that imply about what I DO believe in?
            Do I believe the world will end tomorrow? No. What does that imply?
            Do I believe in Hindu gods? No. What am I positing via this specific lack of belief(s)?
            Do I believe in astrology? No. What does this imply?
            On. And on. And on.

            The motives behind atheism are clear. They’ve been stated and re-stated. There’s not enough space here to cover it all. All I was doing was setting straight what atheism isn’t. It isn’t faith-based, and it’s not inherently unreasonable or nonsensical.

          • I did not mean it to be offensive. However, let me try to rephrase what I mean, specifically in light of your examples.

            There is always a reason for nonbelief. That reason must be explicitly stated in order for that nonbelief to hold weight in a conversation. If I state that I do not believe in Santa Claus, and you ask why, if I reply “because I don’t,” or say “I don’t know,” or remain silent, I have effectively destroyed the conversation.

            Now, the reason itself must be a belief. The only exception is if it is a statement of emotions, such as “I dislike the idea of an old fat man giving gifts to children,” because in most cases, such statements are always true (unless you are lying abut your emotions). Outside of emotional statements, however, the reason must be a belief. I disbelieve in Santa because there is no evidence, and I believe evidence is necessary because I am an evidentialist. Or, I disbelieve in Santa because I know that it is a silly story invented for the sake of a holiday, and because silly stories are almost always false.

            This is not to say that atheism and other nonbeliefs cannot be described in terms of what they are not. You can certainly say that atheism is not “faith-based,” if by faith you mean belief in the supernatural. However to say that something IS nonbelief (that it is identical with nonbelief) is to say some thing utterly nonsensical. You are defining something as being an absence of something, and thus, you are saying that something is nothing (or, in the words of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, you are saying “what is is not,” which is perhaps better translated into English as “being doesn’t be”). This is why I say it is nonsense. If you were to say “atheism is something, but not X,” you would be on the right track, but by merely saying “atheism is identical with nonbelief”–that is what I am calling meaningless.

          • Stephen Norman | Dec 14, 2011 at 9:12 pm |

            Then maybe this definition of atheism will make more sense.

            The concept of God as an idea belonging to several human beings exists.  It also exists in the context of the history of thought and ideas.

            You have a person, an existant.  In theory we can create a list of all beliefs, and then take an inventory of this list with respect to the existant.

            Either the person holds the belief that this God concept is true or not hold the belief.  Atheism describes the sate of events, such that a person does not.  Atheist describes the person at the center of this state of events.

            That atheism describes something that involves non-belief is no less important for its emphasis on what isn’t.  Atheism as a phenomenon is important academically, sociologically, anthropologically, psychologically, historically, and philosophically.

            Though it may not depict an existant, nonbelief nevertheless is created theoretically for every belief as far as the accurate description of states of events are concerned.  Otherwise, how do we name and discuss the state of not-having a certain belief?  Anti-belief?  Counter-belief?  

            Are you really saying that my having absolutely no opinion or belief about possibility X means NECESSARILY that I hold as a belief that “not X”?

          • Stephen Norman | Dec 14, 2011 at 9:23 pm |

            I’ll go on.

            It may be the case that rain gods cause the rain.  But when I encounter rain such a thought does not occur to me whatsoever.  I may be confronted with the possibility and AT THAT MOMENT I may hold what could be called “counter-belief”.  But this is an artificial constraint.

            In my everyday life, in fact in the everyday life of any and all proper atheists, I do not walk around forcibly negating theistic explanations.  They simply DO NOT come up.  This is the very MEANING of nonbelief.  That is, the beliefs do not occur.

            When I see people at the grocery store the belief does not occur that I’m witnessing time travelers from my future.  I don’t hold a counter-belief to the possibility that the person I’m encountering is from the future at the moment I do in fact encounter him/her.  I just don’t have a belief in the possibility.  Again, doesn’t “nonbelief” or “lack-of-belief” describe this state of events?

            Moreover, the fact that some people do hold theistic explanations of phenomena as they encounter them, whereas in other people the beliefs do not come up–which would be described properly as nonbelief and not counter-belief–is meaningful. It says something about life, about human beings, about how we think, etc. etc. It does add something to the conversation to note the nonbelief. Doesn’t it?

          • Stephen Norman | Oct 29, 2011 at 5:43 am |

            I fail to see how that definition is “meaningless.”  It seems to me to succinctly depict something about me and other atheists–whatever motivations or reasons underlying the atheism for me or anyone else wasn’t the point of my defense of it. It may be uninteresting, but it’s not meaningless. What you’re saying here is akin to the rampant misuse of “literally” in everyday conversation.

    • its not tale! wow you guys seriously need to do research. Who wrote the Bible? Humans. People wrote the Bible based on what they have experience. So therefore because it was made by people (and what are we? imperfect people) its going to have its hiccups and stuff that could not be true. The Bible is simply a useful tool, a guidebook if you will, to help you threw life.

      • You mean “to help you throw
        life.”

      •  It certainly advised me on the proper dowery to expect after my daughter was raped, can you imagine throwing a rapist is jail when it turns out they make fantastic husbands?  Unfortunately we had to stone their twins to death after they talked back to their father, but we’re not worried, she can make more.

      • anonymousacolyte | Oct 29, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

        Rachel it is definitely a compilation of tales. The first book of the New Testament was written at least 60 yrs after the death of this Christ guy. So everything in the New Testament is tradition that was verbally passed down for at least 60 yrs. Every play the telephone game? Things get exaggerated over time. My point being is that the Bible was written by those who experienced Jesus it is what is told to them that Jesus was like. The Old Testament is full of tales there is no historical evidence that King David or King Solomon or any of the Old Testament Characters ever existed. All made up to tell a tale that teaches lessons.

  11. Blueoktober | Oct 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

    WTF is up with all these nutjobs posting comments today?   How can you idiots still be so blind in the 21st century.  This article might sound horrible to you, but it’s based on your belief in the text of the Bible.  Your God is a murderous asshole that can only get love by threatening to send you to eternal damnation!  Your God hates.  I am so sick of you self righteous assholes and your God shit. 

  12. Blueoktober | Oct 23, 2011 at 8:38 am |

    WTF is up with all these nutjobs posting comments today?   How can you idiots still be so blind in the 21st century.  This article might sound horrible to you, but it’s based on your belief in the text of the Bible.  Your God is a murderous asshole that can only get love by threatening to send you to eternal damnation!  Your God hates.  I am so sick of you self righteous assholes and your God shit. 

    • Wow seriously Blueoktober? Have you even read the Bible? Have you even gone to church your whole life? I am Catholic and I have been going to church my whole life (25 years) and even to this day, I still can not figure out God. Sure I can make my judgements against him and my religion, but what kind of person would I be. So before you make your decision, maybe you should do some more research, and just when you think you have figured Him out, you need to do some more because you, my friend, will never know until you will finally meet Him. Plus if you really want to kind of see how God works. Look at your parents. Your parents love you, but yet they punish you EVERY time you were bad. The Lord is our Father and all he is trying to do, is to lead us into a great life, instead of hate and judgement. God Bless you! 

      • feint_ruled | Oct 24, 2011 at 7:35 am |

        So, you worship something you admit you don’t even understand?

      • No, the text is really pretty clear. If you don’t understand it, perhaps it’s because you understand deep down that the being portrayed in the bible isn’t a god who deserves to be worshiped, but you feel a deep need to justify your faith and the way you were raised. That internal struggle can have great meaning for you and can help you find your place in the world, please don’t think I’m downplaying your own attempts at finding personal meaning. You can be a better person for it. But the god of the bible is pretty clear-cut and consistent in description and “murderous asshole” is pretty apt. I would include “jealous”, “petty” and “abusive”. And yes, I’ve read the whole thing, in many versions and some of it (the parts written in Greek) in the original. When monotheists try to claim that he’s just “misunderstood,” the rationalizations are remarkably similar to the arguments made by an abused spouse who won’t leave their abuser. “He’s really such a good guy, he’s just got a temper; you just don’t understand how much he loves me. No, really!” “He only hurts people when they deserve it. If he hurt them, they must have done something he didn’t like.” “He only hurt our child to teach me a lesson.”

        • I remember reading a article here a month ago sayign that gods name is “jealous”, that was so funny to me.

          • Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 9:34 am |

            It refers to jealousy as a wife or husband would be jealous over an unfaithful spouse.  

      • Yes, really Rachel. As a former member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I snub my nose at your pathetic Papacy…as a current skeptical agnostic, I tell you that if you had actually read the Bible on your own, rather than believing the completely made-up bullshit that your Pope tells you (historical fact, darling), you might know what you were talking about.

        READ THE BIBLE. THIS IS YOUR GOD. HE IS A MURDERER AND A HATER.

  13. Blueoktober | Oct 23, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

    Which God would that be?  Mithra?  Oh oh oh Im sorry, YOUR God, the ONLY God to you ignorant sheep!  My bad!!

  14. Blueoktober | Oct 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm |

     Christians do nothing but bash.  And yo base your ate on a figment.  You base your genocide on a myth that has passed down 1000s of years.  There were at least 10 “gods” before your Christian God that did the exact same things and had the exact same profile.  But you’re too fucking weak to understand that.  Let’s look at it the other way.  God can murder people any time he wants and force you to live with it.  So Disinfo can post anything they want (as a “GOD” of their site) and you can leave with it or fuck off.

  15. Yes organized religion is a tool often abused to gain control and authority, much the same way that organized crime, trade partnerships and the unequal distribution of wealth and fiat money are. Most rational and thinking people understand that … it’s sort of why people are taking to the streets all over the world.

  16. jasonpaulhayes | Oct 23, 2011 at 9:00 am |

    Yes organized religion is a tool often abused to gain control and authority, much the same way that organized crime, trade embargo and/or partnership, the unequal distribution of wealth and fiat money are. Most rational and thinking people understand that … it’s sort of why people are taking to the streets all over the world.

  17. You missed the point.  A creator killing the creation is not murder.  Disinfo can post anything he wants and I will live with it.  But disinfo also provides me with a comment box encouraging me to voice my opinion.  Christians bash like it is going out of style and they shouldn’t if they want to claim to be a truth movement.  So you could direct my comment at both Christians and Disinfo. 

  18. I feel my comment mostly addressed the issue of the flood.  What about the genocide which God ordered for man to carry out?  I have to admit that I do not have a full understanding of why God would have chosen that course of action over another more peaceful solution.  It does not seem to ring in harmony with “Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Matthew 5:9

  19. Christianity is a catch all term for many religions that as Penn Gillette pointed out in a recent episode of his VidCast “Penn Point” has served to create a base for a group of otherwise infighting sub-sects that represent a variety of moral codes and views on foreign and domestic policy. It’s essentially the reason many religious texts were originally consolidated … in much the same way the Holy Bible has undergone revisions at assemblies such as The Council of Nicaea.

  20. Word Eater | Oct 23, 2011 at 1:35 pm |

    My God, your God, any god is only a personal interpretation of an ideal Creator Thing that exists outside of our reality.
    With that in mind, any person can define it anyway they want to and it is equally valid.
    That doesn’t make it “true”, only valid, something to meditate on.
    I wouldn’t recommend founding nations or murdering hundreds of thousands of people based on it, but as a personal guideline and philosophy, I have no problem with it.

  21. Marcellferdinan | Oct 23, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

    i don’t see it that way, God will have His way.  like it or not, but about Jesus.. Jesus is God Himself the creator of everything that exist.  He claims to be the son of God to teach us that we too are the son of God, He taught to love and forgive our enemies without limits. You can’t really mixed up God with evil killing the innocents. you can see by the intentions if it’s good then it’s God, but again God will have His way.  the choices were Hitler, Communism, or the Zionists.  if you’re a believer than you’ll that this world is already hell.

  22. Marcellferdinan | Oct 23, 2011 at 11:07 am |

    i don’t see it that way, God will have His way.  like it or not, but about Jesus.. Jesus is God Himself the creator of everything that exist.  He claims to be the son of God to teach us that we too are the son of God, He taught to love and forgive our enemies without limits. You can’t really mixed up God with evil killing the innocents. you can see by the intentions if it’s good then it’s God, but again God will have His way.  the choices were Hitler, Communism, or the Zionists.  if you’re a believer than you’ll that this world is already hell.

    • Do moar DMT | Oct 23, 2011 at 7:22 pm |

      Why the hell does it have to be a HIM?

      religious people need to wake the fuck up

  23. Lucius Sorrentino | Oct 23, 2011 at 3:21 pm |

    Hahah…An absurdist’s cliff notes on the history of judeo-chister-islamism. 
    ‘God’ as the enemy of humanity.  Nice touch. 

  24. Hahah…An absurdist’s cliff notes on the history of judeo-chister-islamism. 
    ‘God’ as the enemy of humanity.  Nice touch. 

  25. wow dude, way to show off your insecurities =[
    I thought it was pretty obvious (Word Eater seemed to understand just fine) that I was making the claim: God is not understandable. People that claim to know what God wants, that God is capable of “disliking” or “favoring” one over another, or that God doesn’t exist are just making faith based claims. Atheism is just as much faith based as Christianity and makes just as little sense. Anyone with an actual interest in the subject studies life, drugs, death, physics, philosophy, and many other schools. In the end you come to see there is something, but undefinable. There are rules, but they are persistent, not enforced.
    Men kill men, God has nothing to do with our fallacies.

  26. Religion is the worst of all evils… how ironic is that?
     

  27. Religion is the worst of all evils… how ironic is that?
     

    • Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 9:39 am |

      How do you get the boundaries of evil or even attempt at any definition of it?  You admit to some higher morality by invoking the term evil to begin with.

  28. Tinytemper | Oct 23, 2011 at 5:08 pm |

    > The most common mistake in evaluating the Bible is trying to understand it outside the context of Genesis 1.

    Ahh, like comparing God killing a human to a web administrator removing a page?  Not out of context at all there.  I think the Illuminati might have it right: Abrahamists worship an evil god, but they are too brainwashed to see it.  Time to man up and reclaim your soul.

  29. I think that there ought to be a rule about not being an ignorant fuck before writing something, so that your ignorant fuckery will not be spread to other people.

    Why do I say the author is an ignorant fuck? Because he seems to think God commanded Mohamed to “wipe out” Jews and Christians. Now, I’m no Muslim, but I have taken a few days out of my life to read the Qur’ran, and a few more days to read up on its context, and, as a result, I know that this statement is utter bullshit spread throughout the populace by elitist scumbags, super-patriots, and fundamentalist Christians. Is there violence in the Qur’ran? Sure–against polytheists who were at war with the Muslims. Now while one can certainly critique this, you had best know what the fuck it is that you are critiquing.

    Based on the author’s stance, which reminds me very much of Christopher Hitchens’ stance, I suspect that the author himself is a part of what he calls the “one percent.” By this, I mean that militant atheism is inherently eurocentric  and elitist. Note that I am not saying that militant atheists (the individuals who subscribe to militant atheism) are inherently eruocentric and elitist. I’m sure someone can tell a sob story about how he grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and was indoctrinated into Christianity, yadda yadda yadda (not that I’m dissing that story, but it is ultimately irrelevant to my point). But if you are an actual radical (I’m thinking mostly anarchism, Marxism, and socialism, which make up the backbone of those actually participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests), then you are most likely not a militant atheist–maybe some sort of atheist, but not like Dawkins and Hitchens. Because ultimately, that kind of atheism just supports neoconservative hate-mongering.

  30. I think that there ought to be a rule about not being an ignorant fuck before writing something, so that your ignorant fuckery will not be spread to other people.

    Why do I say the author is an ignorant fuck? Because he seems to think God commanded Mohamed to “wipe out” Jews and Christians. Now, I’m no Muslim, but I have taken a few days out of my life to read the Qur’ran, and a few more days to read up on its context, and, as a result, I know that this statement is utter bullshit spread throughout the populace by elitist scumbags, super-patriots, and fundamentalist Christians. Is there violence in the Qur’ran? Sure–against polytheists who were at war with the Muslims. Now while one can certainly critique this, you had best know what the fuck it is that you are critiquing.

    Based on the author’s stance, which reminds me very much of Christopher Hitchens’ stance, I suspect that the author himself is a part of what he calls the “one percent.” By this, I mean that militant atheism is inherently eurocentric  and elitist. Note that I am not saying that militant atheists (the individuals who subscribe to militant atheism) are inherently eruocentric and elitist. I’m sure someone can tell a sob story about how he grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and was indoctrinated into Christianity, yadda yadda yadda (not that I’m dissing that story, but it is ultimately irrelevant to my point). But if you are an actual radical (I’m thinking mostly anarchism, Marxism, and socialism, which make up the backbone of those actually participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests), then you are most likely not a militant atheist–maybe some sort of atheist, but not like Dawkins and Hitchens. Because ultimately, that kind of atheism just supports neoconservative hate-mongering.

    • *facepalm* Do you even _know_ anyone openly atheist? I’m guessing not.. in case you missed it, the conservative hate machine is built on the back of Christian dogma. I wouldn’t say it’s terribly Christian in nature, but it cloaks itself in Christianity to appeal to ignorant rubes. If Dawkins comes up among them at all it’s as a target not as an ally. Atheists are one of their main enemies because atheists tell people to analyze the things they believe, and that is anathema to the blind following that the neocons require!

      • All my friends at college are atheists. I tried to assist in founding an atheist club at this same college a year ago (which didn’t pass), due to my hatred for the conservative/fundamentalist Christianity espoused by the school and the repression of differing beliefs, despite my not being an atheist. Trust me: I know atheism quite well.

        What you are doing is repeating verbatim the “official”statement on militant atheism (official according to militant atheists, that is). What I am doing is saying that militant atheism is often an excuse for being a western supremacist. Your discussion of the conservative hate machine being built on Christian dogma is only partly true. Two people can arrive at the same place by twodifferent roads. Hitchens in particular is an example of this: he is a flaming racist and islamophobe, yet he does not need Christianity to get there. Indeed, this article (if you can even call it that) is an example of the same stupidity.

      • Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 9:42 am |

        Examine dark matter, or life from non-life, or matter from nothing, or multiple dimensions…pompous indeed.

    • anonymousacolyte | Oct 29, 2011 at 12:04 pm |

      The Qu’ran and the Bible are not accurate portrayals of history. No matter what the Qu’ran says about what happened the facts are pretty clear that the religion was spread through conquering. Not just polytheists either, they conquered and either enslaved or converted the survivors. If you look at this article from a historical standpoint its very accurate. The point is all religions are corrupt, spirituality is real. The stories are in religious texts should not be taken literally. They are like myths and fables, just stories that teach life lessons. 

      • I made no mention of the texts’ historical accuracy. I happen to agree with you that they are myths (in the best sense of the word). All I was saying is that Islam, as defined by its holy book, and by its modern day followers, is not at all what this article says it is.

  31. Some people think true freedom is only achievable once God is killed. I just say, be careful what you wish for.

  32. Anonymous | Oct 23, 2011 at 7:01 pm |

    Is God even aware of wealth? The concept must be quaint to a being who can create universes at a whim.

  33. Is God even aware of wealth? The concept must be quaint to a being who can create universes at a whim.

  34. Atheism is not based on any faith at all.  The prefix “a” is the obvious giveaway here.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any theistic dimension.  It’s unclear how this could be based on faith, since there’s nothing being posited.  It’s also unclear how it could be a nonsensical mental state.  

    Let’s take electricity.  An electrician explains to you how the wiring in your house works.  Do you at that point have any reason to suddenly believe that fairies are also involved in electricity somehow?  No.  THAT would make no sense.  THAT’S what throwing God/theism into a belief system is, it’s positing the unnecessary.  

    “In the end you come to see there is something, but undefinable.”  Really?  That’s what God is?  That’s completely vacuous.  Meaningless flim flam.  I was raised a Christian, delved into the occult, mysticism, new Age paganism during adolescence, studied philosophy in college . . . and, no, you’re wrong, I didn’t come to your conclusions; I’m an atheist.  I don’t deny the possibilities, but the mere possibility of something is no justification for actual, positive belief.  Neither is some “whoa, like, feeling deep inside, man” any justification.If you actually had any familiarity with philosophy you’d realize that calling something undefinable is garbage.  As soon as you describe something as indescribable, define something as undefinable you’ve contradicted yourself.  This sort of mumbo jumbo has no place in a real philosophical investigation of reality.  Philosophy is not bookstore metaphysics, it’s an exhaustive analytic enterprise.

  35. ” A creator killing the creation is not murder.”
    This is why my wife and I support parents rights to murder their children.

  36. DeepCough | Oct 23, 2011 at 9:15 pm |

    Behold! I bring to thee all the AntiGospel of the Great Carlin!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

  37. DeepCough | Oct 23, 2011 at 5:15 pm |

    Behold! I bring to thee all the AntiGospel of the Great Carlin!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

  38. Lucius Sorrentino | Oct 23, 2011 at 10:50 pm |

    I’m with Nietzsche on this – ‘god’ is already dead.

  39. Wow seriously Blueoktober? Have you even read the Bible? Have you even gone to church your whole life? I am Catholic and I have been going to church my whole life (25 years) and even to this day, I still can not figure out God. Sure I can make my judgements against him and my religion, but what kind of person would I be. So before you make your decision, maybe you should do some more research, and just when you think you have figured Him out, you need to do some more because you, my friend, will never know until you will finally meet Him. Plus if you really want to kind of see how God works. Look at your parents. Your parents love you, but yet they punish you EVERY time you were bad. The Lord is our Father and all he is trying to do, is to lead us into a great life, instead of hate and judgement. God Bless you! 

  40. its not tale! wow you guys seriously need to do research. Who wrote the Bible? Humans. People wrote the Bible based on what they have experience. So therefore because it was made by people (and what are we? imperfect people) its going to have its hiccups and stuff that could not be true. The Bible is simply a useful tool, a guidebook if you will, to help you threw life.

  41. wow every time I read your ridiculous comments, it makes me laugh even more. “Christians do nothing but bash” umm you should really read your posts. I am just saying. What Christian has ever said I am perfect? I promise you, no Christian has ever said that, but I appreciate you putting us Christians on a higher level, 😀

  42. and Ps. its not 10 15 100 different Gods, its one God but with many different interpretations of God because as I said before we are humans and we are far from perfection. God Bless you! 

  43. and Ps. its not 10 15 100 different Gods, its one God but with many different interpretations of God because as I said before we are humans and we are far from perfection. God Bless you! 

  44. Do moar DMT | Oct 23, 2011 at 11:22 pm |

    Why the hell does it have to be a HIM?

    religious people need to wake the fuck up

  45. eh its old tradition. I am hoping you are some what educated in history and if you are then you should know, males were known to be all powerful and since God is all powerful then we labeled him as God.

  46. eh its old tradition. I am hoping you are some what educated in history and if you are then you should know, males were known to be all powerful and since God is all powerful then we labeled him as a man
    .

  47. You mean “to help you throw
    life.”

  48. God is an alien I believe, who sent us here to mine gold. He’s buying it back at outrageously high prices. Call now for your free gold kit. Angels are standing by to assist you…

  49. God is an alien I believe, who sent us here to mine gold. He’s buying it back at outrageously high prices. Call now for your free gold kit. Angels are standing by to assist you…

  50. Lifobryan | Oct 24, 2011 at 1:04 am |

    This all makes perfect sense if one simply acknowledges that “In God We Trust,” printed on the Dollar Bill, is a self-referential statement …..

  51. Vi0let_femme | Oct 24, 2011 at 1:04 am |

    god is an angry man?
    who knew..  
    oh yeah… the guy that wrote this article
    since he’s got god all figured out maybe he can tell us about all the other mysteries of life…

  52. lifobryan | Oct 23, 2011 at 9:04 pm |

    This all makes perfect sense if one simply acknowledges that “In God We Trust,” printed on the Dollar Bill, is a self-referential statement …..

  53. Vi0let_femme | Oct 23, 2011 at 9:04 pm |

    god is an angry man?
    who knew..  
    oh yeah… the guy that wrote this article
    since he’s got god all figured out maybe he can tell us about all the other mysteries of life…

  54. the author’s account is simply the Judeo-Christian version of the fairy tailangry god, needs blood sacrifices to feel good, makes inhuman demands on humans, finally kills his own sonpretty nutty storyit’s not the most wacky religious story out therebut it’s in the the top 5

  55. BuzzCoastin | Oct 23, 2011 at 9:30 pm |

    the author’s account is simply the Judeo-Christian version of the fairy tail
    angry god, needs blood sacrifices to feel good,
    makes inhuman demands on humans, finally kills his own son
    pretty nutty story
    it’s not the most wacky religious story out there
    but it’s in the the top 5

  56. Everything is based on some belief. You can’t have nonbelief by itself. If you disbelieve in God, it is because you hold other beliefs that rule out or lead you to be disinclined toward a belief in God. You are always positing something. This is true for all supposed nonbeliefs, and thus makes the definition of atheism as “lack of belief in any theistic dimension” meaningless at best, and destructive to conversation at worst.

  57. Like a child’s beleif in Santa claus or the Easter bunny. Eventually we all grow up and learn to form our own opinions. Like faith, we don’t have to be told when we feel something isn’t believable, it’s just there..right? If anything the belief is cast aside from the hypocracy and force feeding of this garbage people call god. So in a way your right I don’t believe in God because I believe those that do are assclowns..Maybe not assclowns, but they should certainly be confined to live in the south 😉 Please try to take that as literally as possible.

  58. You get the general gist of what I was saying…I think.

    I just never thought that “those people are assclowns” is a particularly good reason for confining people to one part of the country.

    To each his own, I guess.

  59. awww come on..We could put them in reservations like the American Indians..Give em casinos and substandard housing..okay this joke is going nowhere…please tip your waitress

  60. feint_ruled | Oct 24, 2011 at 11:35 am |

    So, you worship something you admit you don’t even understand?

  61. (in reply to Stephen/Heath)
    you guys both make good points, I don’t want to come across as arguing, but it’s very difficult to get these kinds of esoteric ideas across in a few lines of roman characters, you’re obviously smart enough to understand what I mean by that. Atheism is totally faith based from my experience though, maybe not for you personally Stephen, I’m sorry for making such a broad category, but that’s what everyone else is doing, grouping anyone who believes in God with the bible, etc, etc. It’s not the best way to go about things but it speeds it all up.

    I say atheism is faith based, mainly because I listened to a great lecture on the topic some 16 months ago, but also because that’s really what it is for most people. It is a “belief” therefor faith founded, if not based. I “believe” in a higher presence of unimaginable power and unfathomable depth that has NOTHING to do with Christianity or ANY religious text that I’ve ever come across (unless you want to call the Tao Te Ching or the Go Rin no Syo religious which would be pretty ludicrous). And admit gladly that a large portion of that is faith based as I’ve never shaken hands with this supreme “being”… but to ignore all paranormal research in all of its flavors including physics and medicine and to come to the conclusion that there “must not” be a God is making a faith based claim, or in other words an unproven statement. I’m doing the same thing since no one else is in my boots, so I can’t bash on anyone for being atheist or Christian or whatever. But people that wave their arms around and try REALLY hard to belittle people just for thinking different than themselves really don’t have any place any where.

    Then again the top post with an outstanding vote count compared to the rest is the one guy ranting “I am so sick of you self righteous assholes and your God shit,” so I’m clearly not posting on the right intertubes.

    I just wish people could learn to accept that a lot of people that believe in God don’t believe in the Christian God, or the Muslim God, or whatever other crazy angry shallow small-minded power mongering fear based ruler in the sky the media blares about 24/7. There are plenty of intelligent people within and without of the religious institutions happy to talk about their beliefs if you can get past calling them asshats before even asking them any serious questions…

  62. Martybills | Oct 24, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

    you was right until you believed his sone saves you.  everybody goes to hell cuz god is still pissed.  hes a useless jackass anyway.  why would you beleive he isn’t pissed yet….jesus diddn’t change how any of us live…he just created a lot of religious, useless, brainwashed people.

  63. Martybills | Oct 24, 2011 at 10:14 am |

    you was right until you believed his sone saves you.  everybody goes to hell cuz god is still pissed.  hes a useless jackass anyway.  why would you beleive he isn’t pissed yet….jesus diddn’t change how any of us live…he just created a lot of religious, useless, brainwashed people.

  64. Anonymous | Oct 24, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

    No, the text is really pretty clear. If you don’t understand it, perhaps it’s because you understand deep down that the being portrayed in the bible isn’t a god who deserves to be worshiped, but you feel a deep need to justify your faith and the way you were raised. That internal struggle can have great meaning for you and can help you find your place in the world, please don’t think I’m downplaying your own attempts at finding personal meaning. You can be a better person for it. But the god of the bible is pretty clear-cut and consistent in description and “murderous asshole” is pretty apt. I would include “jealous”, “petty” and “abusive”. And yes, I’ve read the whole thing, in many versions and some of it (the parts written in Greek) in the original. When monotheists try to claim that he’s just “misunderstood,” the rationalizations are remarkably similar to the arguments made by an abused spouse who won’t leave their abuser. “He’s really such a good guy, he’s just got a temper; you just don’t understand how much he loves me. No, really!” “He only hurts people when they deserve it. If he hurt them, they must have done something he didn’t like.” “He only hurt our child to teach me a lesson.”

  65. Tinytemper | Oct 24, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

    Your children are actually property of God according to these wackos.  Therefore sacrificing your children to God is acceptable, as shown in the Bible.  God loves Him some blood!

  66. Anonymous | Oct 24, 2011 at 2:46 pm |

    *facepalm* Do you even _know_ anyone openly atheist? I’m guessing not.. in case you missed it, the conservative hate machine is built on the back of Christian dogma. I wouldn’t say it’s terribly Christian in nature, but it cloaks itself in Christianity to appeal to ignorant rubes. If Dawkins comes up among them at all it’s as a target not as an ally. Atheists are one of their main enemies because atheists tell people to analyze the things they believe, and that is anathema to the blind following that the neocons require!

  67. Anonymous | Oct 24, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

    So my lack of belief in Santa Claus is based in what kind of “faith” exactly? Belief in something is irrelevant. If there’s no scientific evidence for it, and it can’t affect the world, it’s irrelevant.

    The absence of belief does not posit belief.

  68. Anonymous | Oct 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm |

    It makes sense in the context of it being a political expedient to claim that God told you to do it to get your followers to go through with it. If you consider it from a pragmatic perspective, it makes perfect sense. Either Moses’s god was a royal bastard or Moses claimed his god told him to do things but it was a lie to keep political power over a group of people. The second choice there seems most likely but it doesn’t paint Moses in such a great light either then. One of them was a real ass.

    Hm. Tangent: I every time I typed “god” above, I first typed “gold” and had to correct it. Not intentional but kind of appropriate.

  69. All my friends at college are atheists. I tried to assist in founding an atheist club at this same college a year ago (which didn’t pass), due to my hatred for the conservative/fundamentalist Christianity espoused by the school and the repression of differing beliefs, despite my not being an atheist. Trust me: I know atheism quite well.

    What you are doing is repeating verbatim the “official”statement on militant atheism (official according to militant atheists, that is). What I am doing is saying that militant atheism is often an excuse for being a western supremacist. Your discussion of the conservative hate machine being built on Christian dogma is only partly true. Two people can arrive at the same place by twodifferent roads. Hitchens in particular is an example of this: he is a flaming racist and islamophobe, yet he does not need Christianity to get there. Indeed, this article (if you can even call it that) is an example of the same stupidity.

  70. I didn’t say faith. I said belief (faith can serve the purpose I’m going
    for, but is too prone to equivocation by people who want to claim that
    atheism requires no faith). Belief means accepting some proposition as true.

    You have already proved my
    point, however. You say “If there’s no scientific evidence for it, and
    it can’t affect the world, it’s irrelevant.”

    Evidentialism–the
    belief that everything must be supported by evidence–and logical
    positivism–the belief that the only valid knowledge is
    “scientific”–are the two (major) beliefs you hold. These are required
    for your atheism (you could have atheism separate from these, but it
    would be a completely different kind of atheism).

    You have to believe something in order to disbelieve something. If you don’t accept this, then you have not examined your own belief system enough.

  71. With a tendency for psychopathic rages…

  72.  It certainly advised me on the proper dowery to expect after my daughter was raped, can you imagine throwing a rapist is jail when it turns out they make fantastic husbands?  Unfortunately we had to stone their twins to death after they talked back to their father, but we’re not worried, she can make more.

  73.  actually it kind of is.  Until we get past these ancient superstition we will never get any further as a society.

  74. I remember reading a article here a month ago sayign that gods name is “jealous”, that was so funny to me.

  75. all things are true, false, and meaningless. Your idea of true and false hold you to them. If you can not have a middle ground then you are right, for you. “Everything is based on some belief” is circular knowledge. I would argue that i believe in that which i interact with(sight,sound,taste,hear,touch,thought), i could not interact with these things unless i believed in them. That is as far as belief goes for me though. Once we start talking about unicorns and “real thoughts” you can stop having belief and non-belief and enter a middle ground. I and many others have called it fantasy and dreams. I don’t have to believe or disbelieve in this realm of fantasy, i can choose a middle ground or be born outside it without knowledge of it. Having no knowledge allows me to not have a belief or non-belief in your idea.

     A persons belief in a god makes it real in a lovecraftian view and a persons non-belief in the same entity dose not strengthen it but rather weakens it and to have no view at all abolishes the idea completely. “you are always positioning something” is only relavent to what is being poisitioned, so you can’t make that your grounds for proof that your idea is Real. If a dark age occurs again all of your meaning is gone and so your beliefs, look to feral children. Belief on the idea level is not inherant to us, it is a conversation started a few thousand years ago. The world however in its billions years past and billion years future will still be here with or without your ideas of belief. And that is the middle ground, take yourself out of the equation and look at the universe. 

    In basic terms you are taking peoples idea of “i don’t know” and throwing them into I don’t believe which is not true for many of us. Or you take a persons view of “i don’t know” and throwing them into i might believe and that again is not the same.

  76. Yes, really Rachel. As a former member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I snub my nose at your pathetic Papacy…as a current skeptical agnostic, I tell you that if you had actually read the Bible on your own, rather than believing the completely made-up bullshit that your Pope tells you (historical fact, darling), you might know what you were talking about.

    READ THE BIBLE. THIS IS YOUR GOD. HE IS A MURDERER AND A HATER.

  77. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

    I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

    Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

    The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

  78. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

    I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

    Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

    The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

  79. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

    I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

    Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

    The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

  80. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

    I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

    Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

    The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

  81. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

    I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

    Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

    The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

  82. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

    I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

    Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

    The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

  83. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

    I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

    Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

    The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

  84. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

    I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

    Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

    The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

  85. You cannot take yourself out of the equation. “You,” whatever “you” might happen to be, are always in the equation for yourself, because it is not possible to get rid of “you” while looking at the universe. The only way there might be to get rid of yourself is by diffusion–“becoming one with the universe,” “ego death,” “mystical experiences” and the rest of that stuff (I can’t say whether I believe it or not, however)

    I’m not saying there is no middle ground–professing “I don’t know” can be considered just that, but in the case of “I don’t know,” one is freed from the logical constraints of proving his belief, and can consequently believe or disbelieve something for no reason whatsoever. Thus, the sword cuts both ways. Complete skepticism opens all doors, and has no preference.

    Put simply, if I profess that I do not know if unicorns exist, then I can believe whatever I want about unicorns’ existence. If everyone doesn’t know if unicorns exist, then everyone can believe whatever they want about it as well. We could have a world where a third of the population believed in unicorns, another third disbelieved in unicorns, and the final third didn’t care or professed agnosticism. And none of these could be considered worse or less logical choices than the others.

    The only case in which this would not be true is if I held a belief about the nature of things to which I profess agnosticism. If I believed that non-knowledge justifies and necessitates disbelief, then we are right back to where we started, and my criticism applies.

  86. you don’t understand becuase you have no knowledge of it. And yes you can take yourself out of the equation, because you mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. get your head out of your own ass.

  87. your argument only works if your special.

  88. the universe exist with or without you

  89. “Everything is based on some belief”

  90. ok igot it, a tree falling in the woods makes no sound if your not around?

  91. First things first, don’t be asshole–reply with one post. Second, learn how to spell.

    Third, learn how to argue and read arguments. I’m not saying anything about trees falling or the stuff that happens outside of your brain (small though it may be, in your case). I’m talking about belief and non-belief. I’m talking purely about what goes on in the mind.

    You can’t take yourself out of the equation, because the second you do that, you are in a state we refer to as “dead.” Your heart has ceased beating, your brain has stopped functioning, and “you,” as you, are incapable of doing anything. You can only understand anything you claim to through the being called “you.” This has nothing to do with how the world is outside of you.

    Seeing, however, as this is a waste of my time, I would advise you to try to understand the eight sentences in the past three paragraphs, as they are, in general, of small enough size for a person of your mental stature. Then, after that, I would look at my other posts and reread them–slowly, of course, so that you don’t confuse yourself with that eager mind of yours. Then, I would go read some philosophy, so that I didn’t  subtract from the total knowledge of humanity by speaking and typing.

    After that, I’d go eat dinner. Because that’s how long it would probably take you.

  92. Colonel Cuddles | Oct 26, 2011 at 10:16 pm |

    Religion is for tards. The MASSES are ASSES. Thats not just something grandpa just said, its true. Yea, there is some good stuff in those books, but THEY are not made for religious blind following. ANY half retard who has read anything from any of them and COMPREHENDS the message KNOWS. The bible say that when the truth IS finally “REVELED” NOBODY, even LIFELONG DEVOTED followers will believe or understand it. If you go to church and follow somebodies interpretation or your soul, its battles and the book…YOU ARE STUPID! A DRONE, a SHEEP- (I love that part.The fuckin book TELLS you how STUPID you are)….Gal 4…PAUL TELLS YOU IN BLACK AND WHITE ITS ALL BULSHIT! Read the DAMN BOOK for yourself. Don’t wait for some pool pit bloodsucker of the poor tell you what to do with your soul and money DUMBASSES!

  93. Colonel Cuddles | Oct 26, 2011 at 10:16 pm |

    Religion is for tards. The MASSES are ASSES. Thats not just something grandpa just said, its true. Yea, there is some good stuff in those books, but THEY are not made for religious blind following. ANY half retard who has read anything from any of them and COMPREHENDS the message KNOWS. The bible say that when the truth IS finally “REVELED” NOBODY, even LIFELONG DEVOTED followers will believe or understand it. If you go to church and follow somebodies interpretation or your soul, its battles and the book…YOU ARE STUPID! A DRONE, a SHEEP- (I love that part.The fuckin book TELLS you how STUPID you are)….Gal 4…PAUL TELLS YOU IN BLACK AND WHITE ITS ALL BULSHIT! Read the DAMN BOOK for yourself. Don’t wait for some pool pit bloodsucker of the poor tell you what to do with your soul and money DUMBASSES!

  94. Colonel Cuddles | Oct 26, 2011 at 6:16 pm |

    Religion is for tards. The MASSES are ASSES. Thats not just something grandpa just said, its true. Yea, there is some good stuff in those books, but THEY are not made for religious blind following. ANY half retard who has read anything from any of them and COMPREHENDS the message KNOWS. The bible say that when the truth IS finally “REVELED” NOBODY, even LIFELONG DEVOTED followers will believe or understand it. If you go to church and follow somebodies interpretation or your soul, its battles and the book…YOU ARE STUPID! A DRONE, a SHEEP- (I love that part.The fuckin book TELLS you how STUPID you are)….Gal 4…PAUL TELLS YOU IN BLACK AND WHITE ITS ALL BULSHIT! Read the DAMN BOOK for yourself. Don’t wait for some pool pit bloodsucker of the poor tell you what to do with your soul and money DUMBASSES!

  95. I agree that a person is always positing something, but I disagree with your last sentence so much that I’m almost offended.  It IS absolutely worth reiterating the semantics of atheism and other nonbeliefs, because otherwise there are an infinite amount them nonbeliefs-as-belief.  Considering everything possible all the time, THAT would be destructive to conversation.

  96. I fail to see how that definition is “meaningless.”  It seems to me to perfectly depict something about me and other atheists.

  97. “but to ignore all paranormal research in all of its flavors including physics and medicine and to come to the conclusion that there “must not” be a God is making a faith based claim, or in other words an unproven statement.”

    I’ve yet to come across anything other than personal accounts that imply God’s existence.  All the paranormal research I’ve read can be either be explained by psychology or lacks any evidence that would justify any belief on my part.  And I do read it.  Since I was a boy I’ve been obsessed with alien abduction literature.  I read it as folklore, however.  People making claims about God just doesn’t seem to me to be enough to suggest anything remotely approaching likelihood/existence/high-probability.  So, in my mind, there’s nothing to refute.  I don’t have to base the conclusion, if I’ve made one at all, on any faith at all, because I’ve never encountered a sufficient reason to consider otherwise.

    As far as your last paragraph, I understand what you’re saying and I empathize.  I wish people could learn to accept that many atheists aren’t just being pricks or just religious about science or unfeeling, joyless snobs.  We just can’t see what’s convinced the theists to be theists.

  98. anonymousacolyte | Oct 29, 2011 at 4:04 pm |

    The Qu’ran and the Bible are not accurate portrayals of history. No matter what the Qu’ran says about what happened the facts are pretty clear that the religion was spread through conquering. Not just polytheists either, they conquered and either enslaved or converted the survivors. If you look at this article from a historical standpoint its very accurate. The point is all religions are corrupt, spirituality is real. The stories are in religious texts should not be taken literally. They are like myths and fables, just stories that teach life lessons. 

  99. anonymousacolyte | Oct 29, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

    Rachel it is definitely a compilation of tales. The first book of the New Testament was written at least 60 yrs after the death of this Christ guy. So everything in the New Testament is tradition that was verbally passed down for at least 60 yrs. Every play the telephone game? Things get exaggerated over time. My point being is that the Bible was written by those who experienced Jesus it is what is told to them that Jesus was like. The Old Testament is full of tales there is no historical evidence that King David or King Solomon or any of the Old Testament Characters ever existed. All made up to tell a tale that teaches lessons.

  100. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

    It refers to jealousy as a wife or husband would be jealous over an unfaithful spouse.  

  101. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:35 pm |

    I worship quantum physics and bio, cosmological and chemical evolution…oh wait we don’t understand any of that completely either.

  102. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:39 pm |

    How do you get the boundaries of evil or even attempt at any definition of it?  You admit to some higher morality by invoking the term evil to begin with.

  103. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

    Examine dark matter, or life from non-life, or matter from nothing, or multiple dimensions…pompous indeed.

  104. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

    # 4 is cosmological evolution.

  105. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

    Niche realized the same thing, good point Gradient.

  106. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

    Like the more peaceful solution being attempted with the Palestinians?  Sometimes people are so far gone that there is nothing left to do but destroy them.  Should we have taken a more peaceful approach with the Japanese or Germany in WWII?  Do you really hold the belief that the taking a human life could never be justified…especially by an all powerful being?

  107. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

    So you are pro choice?

  108. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:56 pm |

    reference on that one Tiny?

  109. Anti-Crowley | Oct 31, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

    Like overcoming slavery?  The belief that all of us are equal?  Atheism taken to its logical conclusion leads to biological heroism, yes there are plenty of traps set in the absence of the transcendent as well Potter.

  110. > Sometimes people are so far gone that there is nothing left to do but destroy them.

    I don’t think that’s a Christlike attitude at all.

  111. I made no mention of the texts’ historical accuracy. I happen to agree with you that they are myths (in the best sense of the word). All I was saying is that Islam, as defined by its holy book, and by its modern day followers, is not at all what this article says it is.

  112. I did not mean it to be offensive. However, let me try to rephrase what I mean, specifically in light of your examples.

    There is always a reason for nonbelief. That reason must be explicitly stated in order for that nonbelief to hold weight in a conversation. If I state that I do not believe in Santa Claus, and you ask why, if I reply “because I don’t,” or say “I don’t know,” or remain silent, I have effectively destroyed the conversation.

    Now, the reason itself must be a belief. The only exception is if it is a statement of emotions, such as “I dislike the idea of an old fat man giving gifts to children,” because in most cases, such statements are always true (unless you are lying abut your emotions). Outside of emotional statements, however, the reason must be a belief. I disbelieve in Santa because there is no evidence, and I believe evidence is necessary because I am an evidentialist. Or, I disbelieve in Santa because I know that it is a silly story invented for the sake of a holiday, and because silly stories are almost always false.

    This is not to say that atheism and other nonbeliefs cannot be described in terms of what they are not. You can certainly say that atheism is not “faith-based,” if by faith you mean belief in the supernatural. However to say that something IS nonbelief (that it is identical with nonbelief) is to say some thing utterly nonsensical. You are defining something as being an absence of something, and thus, you are saying that something is nothing (or, in the words of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, you are saying “what is is not,” which is perhaps better translated into English as “being doesn’t be”). This is why I say it is nonsense. If you were to say “atheism is something, but not X,” you would be on the right track, but by merely saying “atheism is identical with nonbelief”–that is what I am calling meaningless.

  113. I did not mean it to be offensive. However, let me try to rephrase what I mean, specifically in light of your examples.

    There is always a reason for nonbelief. That reason must be explicitly stated in order for that nonbelief to hold weight in a conversation. If I state that I do not believe in Santa Claus, and you ask why, if I reply “because I don’t,” or say “I don’t know,” or remain silent, I have effectively destroyed the conversation.

    Now, the reason itself must be a belief. The only exception is if it is a statement of emotions, such as “I dislike the idea of an old fat man giving gifts to children,” because in most cases, such statements are always true (unless you are lying abut your emotions). Outside of emotional statements, however, the reason must be a belief. I disbelieve in Santa because there is no evidence, and I believe evidence is necessary because I am an evidentialist. Or, I disbelieve in Santa because I know that it is a silly story invented for the sake of a holiday, and because silly stories are almost always false.

    This is not to say that atheism and other nonbeliefs cannot be described in terms of what they are not. You can certainly say that atheism is not “faith-based,” if by faith you mean belief in the supernatural. However to say that something IS nonbelief (that it is identical with nonbelief) is to say some thing utterly nonsensical. You are defining something as being an absence of something, and thus, you are saying that something is nothing (or, in the words of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, you are saying “what is is not,” which is perhaps better translated into English as “being doesn’t be”). This is why I say it is nonsense. If you were to say “atheism is something, but not X,” you would be on the right track, but by merely saying “atheism is identical with nonbelief”–that is what I am calling meaningless.

  114. Then maybe this definition of atheism will make more sense.

    The concept of God as an idea belonging to several human beings exists.  It also exists in the context of the history of thought and ideas.

    You have a person, an existant.  In theory we can create a list of all beliefs, and then take an inventory of this list with respect to the existant.

    Either the person holds the belief that this God concept is true or not hold the belief.  Atheism describes the sate of events, such that a person does not.  Atheist describes the person at the center of this state of events.

    That atheism describes something that involves non-belief is no less important for its emphasis on what isn’t.  Atheism as a phenomenon is important academically, sociologically, anthropologically, psychologically, historically, and philosophically.

    Though it may not depict an existant, nonbelief nevertheless is created theoretically for every belief as far as the accurate description of states of events are concerned.  Otherwise, how do we name and discuss the state of not-having a certain belief?  Anti-belief?  Counter-belief?  

    Are you really saying that my having absolutely no opinion or belief about possibility X means NECESSARILY that I hold as a belief that “not X”?

  115. I’ll go on.

    It may be the case that rain gods cause the rain.  But when I encounter rain such a thought does not occur to me whatsoever.  I may be confronted with the possibility and AT THAT MOMENT I may hold what could be called “counter-belief”.  But this is an artificial constraint.

    In my everyday life, in fact in the everyday life of any and all proper atheists, I do not walk around forcibly negating theistic explanations.  They simply DO NOT come up.  This is the very MEANING of nonbelief.  That is, the beliefs do not occur.

    When I see people at the grocery store the belief does not occur that I’m witnessing time travelers from my future.  I don’t hold a counter-belief to the possibility that the person I’m encountering is from the future at the moment I do in fact encounter him/her.  I just don’t have a belief in the possibility.  Again, doesn’t “nonbelief” or “lack-of-belief” describe this state of events?

Comments are closed.