Conversation On Agnosticism vs Atheism

OU812 wrote:

It staggers the mind, if you think about it, that so, so many of our 'enlightened, intellectual' class pass by the label of Agnostic in order to proudly label themselves Atheists. Why not be content with being Agnostic if you, as an intellectual, cannot prove any conclusive position on this point? It seems calling yourself an Atheist is a cheap and easy way to secure an appreciation of your intellect - in certain circles, anyway. I am not using this as a means of starting a theological debate, but to me, the lack of consistency exemplifies, so blatantly, human failings. Would any Atheist 'intellectual' conclude that there is no life on other planets simply because there is no proof that there is?

Gnosticism deals merely with knowledge, not belief. That's where theism comes in. Everyone is agnostic, since NO ONE knows for sure. Saying you're 'agnostic' is a nonsense statement in a sense since it says nothing about what you believe. Even the most religious person on earth is agnostic, no matter what they say. So when someone asks if you believe in god(s) if you're one of those people who shrugs their shoulders and thinks "I dunno" that's not what they asked.

The right answer (and this is where people start getting annoyed and whatnot but it's just true) is that you don't currently hold a positive belief in god, aka you're an agnostic atheist. If you think 'I dunno' when someone asks if you believe in god you're definitely not a theist......which makes you an atheist. There's no third middle option. That middle option people think of is actually the answer to a separate question (do you KNOW a god exists).

Theism= belief in a god.
Prefix 'a' denotes the lack of something.
A-theism= the lack of a belief in god.

Gnosticism= knowledge of god's existence.
Prefix 'a' denotes the lack of something.
A-gnosticism= the lack of knowledge of god's existence.

Two different things. It's not agnostic or atheist; those are two different answers to two different questions. I am an agnostic atheist.

OU812 wrote:

That may be accurate in a literal sense, but i don't think most people, particularly those in the public eye who voice their opinion on the matter, go any further into the definitions of atheist, agnostic and believer/theist than as I had originally argued. That would certainly make sense since I believe those in the forefront of politics and popular culture, the opinions I am hearing and evaluating, are the pseudo-intellectuals Sowell so elegantly swipes at in his books.

You, Sowell, and those like you are all making the same mistake. Let me quote you to show you what I am talking about:

OU812 wrote:

Now both believers and non-believers require the same level of proof to come to their conclusions -- none. It is the Atheist, however, who claims the intellectual high ground for his position, ridiculing those who disagree.

The problem with this is that the burden of proof is always on those making a claim. The axiomatically correct stance in any case of the asserted existence of some thing is the null hypothesis until proven otherwise. This position should only be changed to belief/acceptance of the claim when sufficient evidence is given to them by those making said claim. So, in the case of the existence of a god, the human who says "hey, a god exists" to a second human, or a group of humans, must then prove that this is true. Much like the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court case, the god believer must demonstrate to the people he is preaching that the god in question exists and he must do beyond all measure of reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this, the 'atheist' is holding the correct position- that of disbelief. He need not defend this disbelief nor is it correct to accuse him of holding a faith based position. It is in fact the philosophically correct one.

Sowell is wrong and imo, he just gets off on writing off the atheists as angsty pseudointellectuals. It's lazy.

I Pissed Someone Off Up There......

So if you read this blog on occasion you may have noticed that I have not posted in the last 2+ weeks. Well, I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember but I think perhaps I have been wrong and there's a really pissed off god out there waving his godly staff of power in my direction. Here's what's been happening over in magx01 land. Try not to choke when you laugh at this bullshit.

-Air conditioning broke. Cannot fix right now (bad financial situation after the recent loss of a job contract)

Okay, no big deal. It's just me here so meh. I've been letting cold air in at night and keeping the place shuttered tight during the day. Windows open on the odd cool day. No wife to bitch and moan and make it sound like the world is ending so in the end, eh.

Then this happens:

Guy ran a red light going 80km/h and destroyed my car (a second car, the one behind me, hit me after I spun which is why there are two impact sites). I walked away with a smashed up left knee and nothing else so I cannot complain too much. It's been 2 weeks now and the knee is like 70-80% better already :)

Okay, so two shitty things, but both are not too bad in the grand scheme of things, right?

-Three days after the accident, I hobble over to my freezer upon awakening in the morning to get an ice pack to ice the giant swollen painful knee when I discover that........my fridge/freezer is no longer working!!!!

Okay, now wtf. I'm a calm dude who takes a lot of shit in stride but even I had to yell out "OH COME ON!!!! WHAT THE FUCK NOW?!" (I did laugh after, but it was more of an anxious laugh than a truly legitimate heehaw laugh). Ugh, so I call the repair dudes and the come and fix it the next day. $140 which I really cannot afford right now but it needs to be done so I do it. I ice my knee three times that night and go to bed relieved, money issues aside. I wake up the next day, and I wal-wait, what's that sound? Oh, NO FUCKING WAY.....that's the noise the fridge was making before it broke (click buzz, click buzz). I go over to it, open it and.....

(wait for it)

ITS BROKEN AGAIN!!!!!!

At this point I just felt defeated. I call the repair guys, they come back the next day and the good news is they tore up my cheque and only charged me $60 instead (they took back the part they installed the day previous). The bad news? I need a new fridge. I spend several days hobbling back and forth between my house and my neighbours' to get and hand them food/drinks/ice packs they are storing for me.

-Insurance comes through on the replacement value of the car. The settlement they offer is fairly reasonable, thankfully. I'll be able to get something similar. They tell me the cheque will be here in 5-10 business days. Cool, right? I'll drive my rental car for now, the cheque comes and I go car shopping, buy something, return the rental. Right?

BZZZT. Wrong. The rental needs to be returned tomorrow. "But I don't even have the money yet, how can I buy a car? And how can I get there without a rental?" "Well sir, you can pay out of pocket for the rental." "Out of pocket? This happened because the guy ran a red light. He was charged for this. I was totally innocent and now I am being penalized? How is this in any way reasonable or fair?" "I agree sir, but there's nothing I can do."

*sigh*

Moral of the story: Don't lose a job/contract if you're an atheist because someone up there will choose that time to turn his giant magnifying glass on your tiny little life.

Response To "Two Quick Questions For Christians"

In an earlier post I asked two questions aimed at Christians (although they could apply to people of any religion). I received a response from a Christian and I am posting said response here. I guess this speaks to the idea that smart people are less likely to be talked out of their religion when faced with questioning, contradictory evidence, etc as they can better justify their beliefs. Trying to weave through this web of logic and rationales would be an exhausting task. Not only that, but it really exemplifies just how difficult it would be to try and eradicate religious belief via debate, no matter how compelling the argument/evidence against. 

Question 1: Is there any non biblical, supporting evidence for what you believe ? If so, what is it? If no, and your beliefs are based solely upon what is contained in the bible, what then compels you to believe the book, especially as opposed to all of the other similar books upon which other religions are based, if, and I assume this is true, you believe that none of those other books are supported by extraneous evidence?

Two Quick Questions For Christians

1) Is there any non biblical, supporting evidence for what you believe ? If so, what is it? If no, and your beliefs are based solely upon what is contained in the bible, what then compels you to believe the book, especially as opposed to all of the other similar books upon which other religions are based, if, and I assume this is true, you believe that none of those other books are supported by extraneous evidence?

2) Do you think you'd be a Christian if you were raised in say India, or would you be a follower of the Hindu religion? Does the fact that religiosity is so highly correlated with culture/geography ever occur to you and if so, does that not strike you as a fairly compelling counterargument to your claims of truth?

Religion and Masturbation

I recently watched a movie entitled 'Teeth.' The movie (which wasn't very good but I digress), an indie horror with some comedic elements (it mostly failed on both fronts....some of it was amusing, none of it was scary, but again, digressing...), is about a very religious teenage girl who has taken a vow of 'purity' (aka abstinence) and goes around to other schools prattling on to younger kids and other teens about the 'evils' of sex and how it's only right to save your 'gift' until marriage, and blah blah.

Anyways, one day, this chick is sexually assaulted by a guy that she was starting to date. Not long after this guy forcefully enters her, his penis is bitten off and he dies. You see, her vagina has a set of teeth inside of it (hence the name of the movie) that clamp down and bite anything that enters her, unless she wants it in there and is completely comfortable (this aspect of her fucked up sexuality is discovered later in the movie). Any discomfort and CHOMP! So, throughout the course of the movie, a few penises and some fingers get bitten off, and magx01 gets a laugh or two watching this happen.

Watching this movie got me thinking (and in the mood to rant) about religion and its attitude towards human sexuality. One obvious area of immense damage done by religion is homosexuality. Another is premarital sex (abstinence being a big focus of the movie in question). However, I am going to avoid these particular aspects of sexuality for this blog and focus specifically on masturbation.

Catherine, Herbert Schaible's Second Child Dies After Parents Use Prayer, No Medicine

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

Prosecutors said Tuesday that a decision on charges will be made after they get the results of an autopsy.

Catherine Schaible's attorney, Mythri Jayaraman, cautioned against a rush to judgment, and said the couple are good parents deeply distraught over the loss of another child.

Full Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Theism and Belief: Why is the Burden on Us?

An atheist and a theist engage in a friendly debate about the topic of god; specifically, whether or not one exists. The crux of the atheists' argument is essentially that the evidence for the existence of a god is lacking and has not led to the acceptance (on the part of said atheist) of the hypothesis that such a being exists. The theists' bottom line sentiment is that the evidence is sufficient for people all around the world (him or herself included) and it is up to the atheist to accept this evidence/open their heart/be open minded etc (there are many platitudes that are used in this situation).

This discussion has taken place innumerable amounts of times throughout history, and I don't see any reason to believe that it will not continue to do so for at least the foreseeable future. What I find particularly striking about this fact is that the existence of god is one of the few topics for which it is acceptable to claim that the burden of belief/being convinced lies not on the strength of the evidence put forth to bolster the claim but rather on the target(s) of said claims. A few other topics for which this is true are UFO's, bigfoot and the Illuminati/New World Order. Would anyone care to venture a guess as to what it is that these topics have in common? 

There is no proof that any of them exist (none of them do in my not so humble opinion). 

The Inherent 'Evil' Within Christianity

This is a comment left by someone named Glen on Ray Comfort's stupid blog:

The better question is have you lied? Have you stolen? Have you hated someone? Have you prostituted? Have you ever born false witness? Have you ever used God's name as a dirty filthy cuss word? And better would you used your mamos name that way? Have you ever had sex with more than your spouce? Have you ever dishonored your parents? Thats right both of them together or independently.
Hitler was just as bad off as anyone living on the plannet including you. He may have done more nasty symptoms of the disease but that very same disease affects you; to your very core.
Ray treats the disease not the symptoms.

I responded to him:

@ Glen:


"The better question is have you lied? Have you stolen? Have you hated someone? Have you prostituted? Have you ever dishonored your parents?"


Have you ever told the truth? Have you ever given? Have you loved someone? Have you not prostituted? Have you honored your parents?


If by your logic, a yes to those means you're a "sinner," then logic dictates that a yes means you're the opposite of that.


So much for your little "disease." Sounds mor elike human experience.


Btw, I feel sad for you. Your religion has taught you to think that you are no better than somone who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. I cannot even begin to express how unfair that is.


This is why the only sin is belief in your religion. It teaches you to be ashamed of your very nature and to equate lying with murder.


Btw, lying can be positive, parents don't deserve to be honored if they do not honor their children, hate can be justifed (Hitler, anyone?), and prostitution is not inherently wrong. If you think it is, explain how.

See, this is one of the main problems with christianity. Teaching people that they are born dirty, bad, sinful, wrong, evil, etc. All 'sins' are equal. The logical conclusion derived from these two ideas? "I'm a horrible, corrupted person who deserves to be punished and is in need of redemption. In fact, I'm no better than Hitler."

That fills me with so much despair. Such guilt, and for what? FOR NOTHING!! FOR FUCK'S SAKE IT IS PREDICATED UPON BULLSHIT!!!!!!

GAAAAHHHHH!!!! 

Theist PWND on Gamefaqs

Note: This is an older post that was sitting in my drafts.

Theist PWND on Gamefaqs.

In a discussion on the inclusion of JFK in the upcoming Call of Duty game (something I knew/know nothing about, since I don't follow the games, but this discussion was being had by others and I chimed in) the following ridiculous, frustrating, saddening, angering exchange (more like an ownage session) (with someone I have never spoken to online prior to this) was had:

Thousands Of Gods....One Thing in Common....

Anyone else find it odd that there are apparently thousands of gods in existence, each with differing ideologies, origins, desires and goals, yet the one thing they all seem to share in common with 100% inclusiveness is an inclination to be completely undetectable...

hhhmmmmm......

You Have Proof of Your God's Existence? Okay, Let's Hear It.

Believe in a god? Have proof of said god's existence? I'd like to hear it.

Anyone who happens to be reading this and think they have proof of the existence of their god of choice, let me have it. 

However, if I may, before you reveal it, I'd like to set 3 rules.

1) Arguments from incredulity are fallacious and I will not accept them.  For example, saying "Look at the world around you. sIt's too "perfect." It had to be created, therefore, there's obviously a God." This is a logical fallacy. Just because you cannot fathom any other explanation does not mean there isn't one. All you are really saying is "I don't know and I am inserting "god." There are MANY other possible explanations. Some more plausible than others. So please refrain from using this as "proof." I will not accept it.

2) These also are not valid and will not be accepted as "proof:"

-You can't prove there's not a god!

-Without god, people have no reason to be moral.

The first one is just stupid burden shifting (and still not proof anyways) and the scond one is just a bare assertion fallacy (and wrong) (and still not proof).

3) For people who believe in the "one true god....." whatever proof you do have, ask yourself, could that same proof not be utilized by someone else who believes in a different god? If so, how can it be valid for you and not them? Which means......by your logic, their god must exist as well. For example, if you say "God speaks to me" and this is your proof, fine. However, if someone who believes in one of the 3799 other propsed gods says that as well, would that not be proof that their god also exists?

Okay, so if you think you have proof of god's existence and it does not consist of one of the above disqualified lines of reasoning, please do share it! Keep in mind, however, that this is for people who say they actually have proof, not for those who say it's based on faith.

Judge: A Muslim Has The Right to Attack an 'Offensive' Atheist

Muslim Man Attacks Atheist Dressed as Zombie Muhammad for Halloween. Judge Lets Him Off.

Martin further dressed down Perce for his insensitive behavior, going so far as to call him a doofus and telling him that in Muslim societies he could have been put to death for mocking Muhammad.
“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam,” Martin said. “In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. It makes you look like a doofus… In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”
Sgt. Brian Curtis handled the incident aftermath. Curtis explained that Elbayomy admitted to grabbing Perce that October night.

Is this any different than a judge telling a woman that she was "asking for it" due to her chosen manner of dress?

Typical Discussion with a Christian

I received two private messages on youtube regarding the first ever video I ever uploaded to the site. Said video is based on the following blog post:

Eternal Torment and a Just God

The thesis of said blog post basically being that the christian god punishes every sin in the same way, even though (apparently) not all sins are equal. I ask in the video/blog if this is fair, and whether or not we are more just than god, since "in the criminal justice system, differing crimes are given differing sentences. But not in hell. An atheist gets the same treatment as a serial rapist or a murderer. Hell, under this system, I would get the same punishment as Hitler. Is this fair? Is this behaviour indicitave of an omnibenevolent being?'

Myth: Albert Einstein Believed in God

Claim: Albert Einstein Believed in God

I see this claim being propagated by some in the religious community (including, surprise, surprise, my old friend Ray Comfort). It's quite popular amongst apologists, especially ones of the Christian persuasion. It's also one that could so easily be discovered to be false by these people if they did 5 minutes of homework, assuming of course they don't already know and are just lying to lend some credence to their cause (not that it actually would, but appeals to authority are very popular amongst the religious crowd).

So, what's the real story?

PIC: Christian 'Love' For Atheists: Just What Jesus Would Say?

1984 Becoming a Reality?

Okay, I freely admit that the title of this post was purposely sensationalistic, but in all seriousness, is America becoming more and more Orwellian as time goes on, or am I crazy? Let's examine a couple of news stories:

Christians embarrassed about/ashamed of Satan? (Silence on the Satan(ic) front).

Christians embarrassed about/ashamed of Satan? (Silence on the Satan(ic) front).

I'm Canadian, and here in Canada there's not a whole lot of public god talk. Some, sure, but it's sparse and mostly negligible. Down south however, in the good ol' US of A, it's ubiquitous. It's just god god god. Politicians, athletes, celebrities, televangelists, news anchors, radio hosts, television personalities, basically everyone pimps their god in public. And of course, the majority of them are referring to Yahweh, the god of the Bible, when they speak about this god character.

Interestingly however, very few of them ever mention Satan.

Ever notice that? If so, ever wonder why?

Fearful Teen Commits Suicide Due to Harold Camping's Judgment Day Forecast

http://www.christianpost.com/news/fearful-teen-commits-suicide-due-to-harold-campings-doomsday-50542/

A 14-year-old girl from Russia was so scared of the May 21 doomsday and rapture prediction made by Harold Camping that she committed suicide the same day, investigators said Wednesday. The teenager wanted to choose death rather than be among the ones suffering on earth after the rapture. Nastya Zachinova, who lived in the Republic of Mari El in Central Russia, believed that the world end on May 21, her family told LifeNews, a Russian tabloid. The girl's personal diary entries revealed how terrified she was of the suffering that was to take place. She believed that she was not one of the "righteous" people that would be taken up to heaven but someone who would remain on earth and suffer. “Whales are trying to beach themselves and birds are dying – it is just the beginning of the end,” Zachinova wrote in her last diary entry, as reported by RIA Novosti. “We are not righteous people, only they will go to heaven, the others will stay here on Earth to go through terrible sufferings,” she wrote. “I don’t want to die like the others. That’s why I’ll die now."

The girl hung herself.

Poor thing :(

Unfortunately, as much as I would like him to, Camping cannot be held responsible for this, at least not criminally. Should he be? Is his speech protected under free speech laws? Can one be held responsible if their firmly held religious belief causes someone else to kill themselves (or someone else)? What do you think?

Oh, and what if he's full of shit? What if he's literally making all of this up for publicity and money? What would you think then?

Priest Sex-Abuse Case Hits Church of Pope's Adviser

Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal Number 938346473893 Hit Closer To Home For Pope Ratzinger:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2072613,00.html?xid=rss-world

The latest sex-abuse case to rock the Catholic Church is unfolding in the archdiocese of an influential Italian Cardinal who has been working with Pope Benedict XVI on reforms to respond to prior scandals of pedophile priests.

Father Riccardo Seppia, a 51-year-old parish priest in the village of Sastri Ponente, near Genoa, was arrested last Friday, May 13, on pedophilia and drug charges. Investigators say that in tapped mobile-phone conversations, Seppia asked a Moroccan drug dealer to arrange sexual encounters with young and vulnerable boys. "I do not want 16-year-old boys but younger. Fourteen-year-olds are O.K. Look for needy boys who have family issues," he allegedly said. Genoa Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, who is the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, had been working with Benedict to establish a tough new worldwide policy, released this week, on how bishops should handle accusations of priestly sex abuse.

Are Outspoken Atheists Fundamentalist? What about Militant?

“Atheists are as fundamentalist as those they rally against!” “Militant atheism on the rise.” Sentiments like these are heard on a daily basis now, in response to the “rise of the new atheism,” a concept I have some issue with, but will let fall by the wayside for the purpose of this particular post. So what do these words mean, and does their usage as applied to atheists constitute a fair charge, or are they charges falsely levied?

Let's find out, shall we? We'll start with fundamentalist atheism.