79 responses so far ↓

• 1 Kevin // Jan 30, 2008 at 11:55 am

  The passage I’ve memorized from the Origin of Species:
  “And then the monkey said, ‘let there be humans!’”

• 2 xJane // Jan 30, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  hehe, this was absolutely teh awesome!

  Never eaten babies…although I did read a Modest Proposal when I was in high school. and I, too, need to be invited to all these atheist orgies. Hey, maybe that would be a good name of an atheist-match-making website: Hedonist Orgy! What better way to meet other atheists, neh? And? I’ve never read Origin of the Species. Although I’m fairly certain that the main character is a Beagle, neh?

• 3 mel // Jan 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  Beautful.

  Don’t forget also that we’re going to hell. And for exmormons that’s actually outer-darkness.

  This is clear misconception on it’s face. I mean, its like as if we atheists were to believe that the religious were bound to rot in the earth.

  Oh wait … not qute the same as with so many other failed comparisons between atheist and non-atheist beliefs.

• 4 Brian // Jan 30, 2008 at 5:00 pm

  HA! I knew it! Unicorn haters!

  No need to be so hyperbolic. Obviously you don’t drink whiskey and eat baby casseroles. Everyone knows you drink MERLOT with baby casseroles. Whiskey is for BBQ baby. Maybe you guys are going to one of those uncultured atheist services. I bet you people don’t even sing the olde tyme hymns

  “Then sings my larynx
  My mentor, Chuck, to thee:
  How well adapted to pass on genetic mutations thou art…”

  Also, maybe those orgies are sad and angry BECAUSE they’re womanless. I know I’d feel that way if I showed up for my weekly orgy to find nothing but naked men.

• 5 KeithB // Jan 30, 2008 at 5:42 pm

  Why hate the square root of -1? Granted it is imaginary, but even still it is a very usefull construct, complex math has so many real world applications. The wonderful thing about it is that it doesn’t matter if you believe in “i” literally, it is still just as usefull as a concept, and the answers yielded are just as valid for those that take a non-literal approach.

• 6 Elise // Jan 30, 2008 at 8:19 pm

  “Without God, we lead gluttonous, hedonistic lives, throwing orgies all the time.”

  You have now set very high expectations for the next Remy family birthday bash!

• 7 Chili Pepper // Jan 31, 2008 at 12:06 am

  I’m thinking about the deliciousness of baby carrots right now. Especially if they’re steamed. Talk about yum!

  I’m glad to visit this gig again, John. You have many great thoughts circulating around here — incl. your contributors of course. So I hope to stop by more often, even if I don’t contribute myself.

  Chili

• 8 Rich // Jan 31, 2008 at 8:07 am

  Thanks for putting a smile on my face today; very cleverly written!

• 9 Friendly Atheist » Atheist Misconceptions Cleared // Feb 1, 2008 at 8:00 am

  […] I have to do to entice you to read John’s piece is excerpt this sentence: Mmmmm, […]

• 10 John // Feb 1, 2008 at 8:38 am

  Brian, you are friggin’ hilarious! Can you recommend any good BBQ baby joints?

• 11 Rachel // Feb 1, 2008 at 11:03 am

  Yeah, do they have any baby back ribs?

  …

  I kill me.

• 12 Rasputin // Feb 2, 2008 at 4:20 am

  Oh MAN! Hail to the “We also hate invisible pink unicorns, the square root of negative one…”

  Fuck the square root of neg. one. FUCK it I said! Die, you impossible, irrational figure which I don’t even know why mathematicians are using it!

• 13 Isaac // Feb 2, 2008 at 7:22 am

  The square root of -1 is just as “real” as the square root of +1. It’s just called imaginary, wheras the other is called real, but both are complex numbers that actually exist are useful for solving a variety of problems.

  Can the same be said about God or pink unicorns?

• 14 mel // Feb 2, 2008 at 7:51 am

  Friends, I guess this might explain the relatively high percentage of god-fearing among mathematicians. Bunch of imaginary and irreducibly complex worshiping seed-heads.

  “Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).”
  [link]

• 15 Tara // Feb 2, 2008 at 12:05 pm

  What?? I LOVE BABIES!

  I just can’t finish a whole one. Actually, I prefer eating babies to eating kittens. I don’t have to scrape the fur off of babies.

  My motto: “Baby. the other white meat.”

  Soylent green and all that…

• 16 Richard Wade // Feb 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm

  Hilarious stuff, John. Do baby peas, baby corn and baby carrots count? Nice to learn that Dave Barry is an athiest. He’s my favorite funny man.

  I think the square root of negative one is used to find the area of a circle that has been turned inside out.

• 17 Isa // Feb 2, 2008 at 2:30 pm

  But… but I LOVE the square root of negative one! Hooray for mathematics!

  Anyway, I’m one of those diverse atheists: queer, young female atheist right here.

  Still white though. ;P

• 18 bill frogg // Feb 2, 2008 at 4:35 pm

  gee, I’ve been an atheist since I was a baby and nobody got me anywhere near the stewing pot nor had my twin cousins with bearnaise sauce for Sunday supper. what have I been missing? bill
  ribbit ribbit

• 19 mark // Feb 2, 2008 at 4:35 pm

  No atheists in Foxholes huh?

  http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/
  http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/foxhole.html
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Association_of_Atheists_%26_Freethinkers
  http://www.maaf.info/

• 20 Joseph Peach // Feb 2, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  That damn root of minus 1. I spend all day cursing and shouting at its horribleness. Now, the square root of one is itself- that’s weird, but I can live with it. That square root of minus one though, that makes me so damn mad!

• 21 muse // Feb 2, 2008 at 6:45 pm

  I love how you kept coming back to the baby thing
  great article

• 22 pilgrimgirl // Feb 3, 2008 at 8:45 am

  Me, I like Dutch Babies the best. Yum. Perfect for Sunday brunch….

• 23 Daldianus // Feb 4, 2008 at 7:09 am

  Hehe, that list is great. And there are some very cute atheists out there indeed

• 24 cameron // Feb 5, 2008 at 10:09 am

  I appreciate this post. Though in all fairness atheists have just as many preconceived notions about theists. “they all believe everything on this earth was created in 168 hours”, “they all believe I’m going to hell for not believing in god”, “they all mindlessly block out any contradictory evidence that negate their spoon fed beliefs.”
  hmmm, i could totally write an article ’bout that.

• 25 John // Feb 5, 2008 at 10:42 am

  Cameron, you’re absolutely right. And you should!

• 26 Wendy // Feb 5, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  I’d like to point out that, as an atheist, I actually have faith…faith in the fact that I’m right. (Let’s say God somehow needs something, and has such hurt little feelings when he doesn’t get it that he punishes those from whom he expected to receive it….where did this God come from? He’s a neurotic excuse for a deity, a deity with a human ego…and not a very strong one, at that)

• 27 erik // Feb 5, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  common misconceptions of christians….we all believe the above…

• 28 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 8:50 am

  wendy, your views on what you think god is, is closer to greek mythology then any current christian. Non-thiests put god into this box that man created, with preconcieved notions about why he does things. its a little shortsighted. If you want to combat thiests beliefs, you have to combat their beliefs, not the ones you think they should have.

• 29 John // Feb 6, 2008 at 9:11 am

  Cameron, while you are right that atheists tend to attack a particular conception of God, to argue that many Christians do not believe in the god that Wendy describes is difficult to support. Even among believers, there are a lot of different descriptions of God–some that look like the one Wendy points to, and many that look very different.

  One way to make this argument more constructive would be to describe the God that you believe in, and how it’s different from the one Wendy describes, rather than dismissing her argument as irrelevant.

• 30 Mark // Feb 6, 2008 at 10:02 am

  Cameron, I agree with John. I think the very fact that the first commandment is this god insisting you worship him, and the fact that 4 of the 10 commandments all revolve around that god, speaks to that god’s ego and neurosis. Very human neurosis to say the least.
  Seems Wendy is quite on to something.

• 31 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  very good point john, and mark, if you’re really interested i’d be happy to discuss my beliefs, as well as yours.
  First off, hypothetically speaking (or rather supposing there is a god), if god is omniscient, then he has a purpose. otherwise his existance is unnecessary. If we are infact his children that implies two things. one, we are multicorporal(physical and spiritual), and two, that he created us in one form or another.
  If he created us (in his image, as his “children”) then we would have similarities to diety, common threads, right?
  So as a human parent, some of the basic goals in life are to procreate and to learn to culture emotions such as love. and if we love our children, we want them to grow up to be happy, to have what we have and enjoy the things we enjoy. See where i’m going with this? I’m trying to be concise but fully qualified in my response.. without boring you.

• 32 Ben // Feb 6, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  Dude, you crack me up!!!! I added you to my RSS reader. As a fellow exmo, I was delighted to stumble you.

• 33 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 1:09 pm

  so say that was the beginning, the end result would be us becoming like god. as christ states, and as c.s. lewis comments on, our purpose is to become devine. which would be a life transcending goal. Going off this same theory our lifespan, to god, would look short. our post mortality existance however, would be eternal. if there are certain requirements to gain ‘deity’ then it would be gods highest priority to get us there, reguardless of the experiances in our infantecimal mortal state.

• 34 Jeff // Feb 6, 2008 at 1:50 pm

  Just Stumbling through…

  “…sad and angry womanless orgies”???

  Damn it, now I’ve got to give up Atheism.
  Well, the FSM does offer a stripper factory!

• 35 Mark // Feb 6, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  Cameron, you’ve made some good posts, but they all seem to be about spirituality and not god. You are free to see them as interchangeable or interconnected, but I do not.

• 36 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  Ok, i understand. Let me explain what role my god plays in my life. and i’ll then emphasize why to me spirituality and deity are intertwined
  God is not a manipulative tyrant, nor is he a spoiled boy with an ant farm. what we view as punishment is often times guidance, trials, or experiances that strengthen our intellect, or emotional backbone. In my life i believe god has had more of a guidance role then a repression role. The greatest gift god has given me is agency. The ability to choose right and wrong, and the more intellegence i gain (ha albiet not that much) the more i learn about proactive ideas god would like me to follow. for example, in my religion premarital sex is not condoned. 3 of my friends have had children because of it, 2 of which are filing for divorce. granted these are rare examples, but my life has been less complicated because of the “rules” or “commandments” god has designed. Another huge thing i think is misrepresented about god are the things done in his name. men have the chance to do right or wrong. and arguably in the last 2 millenia god has not stepped in. does this make god the at fault party? For me, god is wise and loving. he asks for submission to his regulations for our benifit, not his. if he was omnipotent he could make us bend to his will to feed his childish ego. I just think that it could be our misinterpretations of god that force the idea of god into a small easily managable box.
  any thoughts?
  i do have questions though, and without ulterior motives.
  what do you believe about life after this life?
  do you believe that your virtues are dependant on the battle between “nature vs nurture”?
  and what theory do you believe in as being the cause of our universe?

• 37 Wendy // Feb 6, 2008 at 3:47 pm

  If I were to subscribe to the notion of God, I would agree that he is not a manipulative tyrant…that was my point. The qualities described by people are the wants & needs of people, not deity. ‘God’ did not cause anything to happen, nor is he in judgment of anything that does happen. What is free will if we choose, and our choice is then punishable because it did not follow rules or guidelines? ‘God’ does not need anything from us, he certainly doesn’t demand anything. Our world is in the condition it is in because of choices we have made. Or haven’t made. Actions we have taken, or actions we have not taken. Not taking action is an action in and of itself.

  Life after this life? I have no idea. Some days I feel that we are simply animals, with intelligence too big for our own good. Other days, I feel there has to be more to the spark of life than simply synapses in our brain. I do feel that humans do not have the comprehension to completely understand ‘life after death’. We are not yet dead (those of us discussing this), and until we are, we will not know. (I could be fucked…but I do not believe that God, if he/she/it does exist, is about punishing me for not believing. In ‘God’s’ eyes, the only true sin is to not live up to your potential, to not believe in yourself. Right & wrong are misnomers. Nothing is right, nothing is wrong. It is a matter of perception.

  Yes, my values are based on ‘nurture vs nature’. DNA is responsible for so much more than hair color & height. But…the things we experience throughout our lives, especially as children, design the greater makeup of how we perceive ourselves and our place in society. How sociopaths are designed, I think both nature & nurture play a role.

  The cause of our universe is so far beyond our comprehension. Time & size limit us greatly.

• 38 Mark // Feb 6, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  My brother is a devout Catholic and his two daughters are also devout. One had a child when she was 17 and gave that child away for adoption. She’s 23 now with two more kids of her own. She’s borrowed money from me twice and I do what I can. Her sister is 16 and every bit as wild as her sister. I worry for her. The older daughter was into the drug scene but seems to have survived it. My brother is suspicious the younger one is drinking regularly.

  My daughters were exposed to the teachings of religion but as secularists. I never told them what to believe but made no bones over my own atheism. One of them is engaged to a medical student, a remarkable guy, and she is working in her career as a movie animator. She’s made a number of films already and she’s only 25. In her spare time she’s working for the Obama campaign. She worries about America and hopes to change the world for the better. She’s a bit of an idealist but not as much of an idealist as her twin sister.

  Her twin sister is at AU in Washington getting her graduate degree in international studies. She wants to work for an NGO to make the entire world a better place. She’s been to Columbia to work with the peasants.

  You could not find two more decent kids, more committed to helping their fellow man. I raised them to be committed to others, but told them nothing about god. My mother scurried them away once to have them baptized. She thought I’d be angry, but I was angrier when she fed them all that chocolate one Easter when they were 18 months old.

  My daughters are pretty sure they are atheists, but they truly don’t think about it. They are more interested in their careers, friends and their fellow man.

  My point is simply this. God did, does, not make you a good parent nor a good human. You are doing that. If your god helps you to do that, fine, but in my mind, you and you alone deserve the credit.

  I know I was and am a good parent, and the only one I share the credit with for two great kids is my ex wife. god was not involved, because he can’t be. He’s a creation.

• 39 Mark // Feb 6, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  Cameron, the above was a response to you but I neglected to say so. As for your questions, I think these are the kinds of questions that I spent hours mulling over back in my college days with other students late into the night. Fascinating issues, but not of much practical importance. But I’ll give it a try.

  What do you believe about life after this life?
  All life requires death. I will decay into the building blocks (food) for future life. That’s it. So if I want to make a difference to make the world a better place for my fellow man, I better get to it soon. To me, I’m simply a part of a larger organism and that organism is the planet, nature and the human race. My goal is to help that organism as much as I can, not entirely unlike the worker bee.

  do you believe that your virtues are dependant on the battle between “nature vs nurture”?
  I’m inclined to think my virtues (?morals) come from the morality of the upbringing I was given. Though I’ve read some studies on the altruism of primates and other life forms so accept that some of it could be nurture. Surely there is a lot of altruism (AKA positive morality) in the bee hive.

  and what theory do you believe in as being the cause of our universe?
  I leave that to scientists and to sci fi writers. Probably more to the SCI FI than to the scientists.

  As for your point on god and his regulations being for our benefit and not his, how do you explain the first four commandments? That’s 40% of his “regulations”.

  Different Christian sects spell them out differently but essential they are:

  1 I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me
  2 You shall not make for yourself an idol
  3You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
  4 Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

• 40 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 5:50 pm

  Wendy,
  I’ll hit this point by point, starting with free will. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. no choice (godfearing or not) does not have a consequence. gods laws are only a set of choices with good consequences and an explaination of choices with bad consequences. Obviously there are more than just black and white, good and bad, but there is in most every choice, an optimum course.
  I totally agree that our world is what we have made it. I would hold to the notion that there are polarizing personalities, basically good vs evil. the only difference between you and i on this point is that i believe there are other forces at work.
  I also very much agree about living up to your potential. If every person strived to make themselves better, things would be alot different.
  (and i also don’t think it to be a sin for simply not believing, i think there is a structure of accountability)
  I agree that dna has a huge role in what kind of person we end up being, same with how we are raised. and though you may conflict with mark on this topic, i think there is room for you both to be right. nuture matters alot, but its not everything. The only distinction i have with you is that i believe that there is a cognizant spirit associated with a physical body. that spirit had a personality before the brain grew enough to manipulate one out of circumstance
  Ps this is what i love about open discussions. we are not all that different about one another.

• 41 Mark // Feb 6, 2008 at 6:05 pm

  Cameron,

  “PS: this is what i love about open discussions. we are not all that different about one another.”

  I agree that we are not that different from one another. I’m a moral atheist, and no doubt Wendy is as well, and you’re a moral theist.

  Doesn’t this speak to the issue that morality does not come from god? (Indeed, the bible gives permission for racism, genocide, incest, slavery, misogyny and numerous other ills.)

• 42 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 6:30 pm

  Mark,
  ha i think i picked up that your posts are directed at me. but clarification is always nice.
  your children sound wonderful. infact your girl getting her graduate degree in international studies is right up my wifes ally, she mastered at international relations at Norwich U. and her sister, I am going through the Adobe Flash Animation classes as we speak. I think its great that you led them, and inspired them to be so upstanding. especially that they both care about their fellow men. all religion aside, if more parents helped raise children like yours things would be so much better here. but that’s not what we’re here to discuss is it.. As i’ve stated, in my life god has only helped guide me down correct paths. I’m the one that did the work, I’m the one to blame for my failures, and i deserve credit for my successes. if most christianity says you shouldn’t take credit, even take every bit of credit for amazing feats such as raising a good child, then i suppose i’m not a part of most christians. Also, i’m qualifying your last sentance as an opinion for the sake of open debate. you cannot prove he doesn’t exist, just as i cannot prove he does.
  I think practical importance depends on the person, and re-reading what i wrote, there is less importance on my questions than i originally thought. but thats why i’m here, to reflect and look at my beliefs from every vantage point, namely yours for now. However, i ask because i believe the ‘worker bee’ mentality would surrender this world to ambitious and greedy men. but for me, if there is more to this life, then there is a point. if consiousness ends at the grave than there is no reason to leave this place better than i found it. nor is there a particular reason to continue life if at the end of the line there is inexistance. helping my fellow man becomes an overall pointless chore.
  the universe, we’ll just drop. my posts are long enough as it is..
  Finally, the first four commandments. (of the specified ten atleast)
  ok, if you believe in the bible, the 10 commandments are over 3000 years old. the leaps man has made since then are insermountable. in history we have always seen the most atrocious things done in the name of some god or another. i speak specifically of human sacrifice, an extremely common thing 4000 years ago. so why wouldn’t god, if he were to instruct, tell people to stop doing that. and again, why, if he is omnipotent would he not just force us to do it? though this is ancient times, i would venture a guess that this commandment gave religious people atleast a good starting block. #2 in the OT the idol was a literal golden calf, but in the NT christ touches on vainity and vices. Interpretation is left to whomever desires, but idols only assist in the surrender of agency, and the corruption of man..
  #3 Humility is something man hardly understands. pride is the downfall of many nations, and will be the downfall of ours. Respect of others, namely god, is meant to humble us, how many rulers, kings, presidents have thought themselves to basically be gods? it’s not the cure-all but it helps. And for a more direct analogy, if you, being a parent don’t have the respect of your children, how hard is it to get over? if god is compassionate, would it not pang him to see his children hate him? or negate him?
  God is a balance of justice and mercy..
  and the sabbath day is more for us than its ever been for him.
  Again i apologize for the length.

• 43 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  and for a quick ps to follow yours,
  agency trapses on that argument.. i can choose to be an ass, just as i can choose to be kind. for us to be good people reguardless of religion or believe only emphasizes the point that we are in control of our lives. god is not.

• 44 Mark // Feb 6, 2008 at 7:41 pm

  Cameron,

  Very good post. But….

  “…if consciousness ends at the grave than there is no reason to leave this place better than i found it. nor is there a particular reason to continue life if at the end of the line there is inexistance. helping my fellow man becomes an overall pointless chore.”

  But I must take issue with this. That is your opinion. You are welcome to it, but I do not share it. Nor thankfully do my kids. Nor do I suspect do the millions of other atheists in the world. (I believe it’s Norway that has one of the lowest crime rates on the planet, and one of the highest atheism rates in the world as well. Upwards of 75%, suggesting that most Norwegians don’t share your view either.) Of course, just because millions do not share your opinion does not mean it is wrong or right. Morality is not up for a vote in my opinion, though what I would consider immoral might have been standard operating procedure in Biblical times. I refer again to the genocide committed both by the Christian god and on behalf of that god. Killing thousands, including children, in the city of Sodom because of the failings of grown ups would be considered an atrocity today. That god would be tried at the World Court. The same is true of Noah’s flood. But calling them atrocities is based upon the morality of modern mankind. Not the morality of god. Another reason why I prefer the morality of man, with all his faults.

  But going back to your point, I firmly believe that I should spend at least some of my life helping mankind. I do it not for any reward after I die. I do not expect a thank you from some old guy with a beard. I do it simply because I believe it’s the right thing to do. I don’t need a god to make it meaningful. I don’t need to be judged by anyone. I do it because it’s right and “altogether fitting and proper that [I] do so”.

  “if there is more to this life, then there is a point.”

  No. Life itself is the point. That’s my belief. I’m not asking you to share it only that you respect it.

  And my point about the worker bee was in regards to nurture versus nature. Bee’s work for the best interest of the hive not because of what they were taught nor what good book they read. They do it because it’s in their DNA. I was merely suggesting that maybe some of mankind’s good works is also DNA. (nature and not just nurture.) I don’t know, I was just suggesting.

  I also found your interpretations of the Bible very revealing. So it’s not what the Bible actually says that is important? It’s mankind’s interpretation and adjustments over the millenia that is what matters? The evolution of thought?

  The reason I bring this up is because I think it speaks to Wendy’s contentions that it’s not about gods word, but man’s interpretations. I think Wendy would say that it starts and ends with man. Man wrote the Bible in an attempt to codify morality, and man has had to evolve those stories in order to keep abreast with modern morality. The Old Testament OK’s slavery and genocide. We don’t believe that anymore. So now we need to either ignore those passages in the Bible, or figure out a way to have Jesus telling us that what was really meant was ….. (Whatever)

  (Numerous books were written in the 1830s to 1850s, some by ministers enumerating the numerous Biblical justifications for slavery. A sad –and Biblical — detour for modern morality.)

• 45 Sam // Feb 6, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  Wow, I just finished reading this whole discussion, and I’ve got to say that I got more out of reading this than hours of Sunday School. Cameron, Mark, and Wendy, your civilized debate gives me hope in a world where the many talking heads wouldn’t dream of having such a respectful and orderly argument. Lately, I have been struggling with my faith, but while reading this discussion, you all helped answer many of my questions regarding faith and God’s existence. It also makes me feel better that there are people in this world who actually are impassioned enough about their religious choices to spread the word in a non-demeaning way.

• 46 xJane // Feb 6, 2008 at 9:56 pm

  Cameron, just my three cents:

  I believe that the soul and the body are separate entities and that only when they combine in a certain combination do they create a “human”. Just as the body gets recycled to become other concrete matter, I believe that the soul gets recycled to become other metaphysical matter. Maybe stars, maybe another soul here & there, maybe someone else’s god…

  I’m not certain what you mean by virtues dependent on the battle. I believe in virtues that do not require a belief in any kind of god. As Mark says, I do right because I believe it’s right. As Anthony Kiedis says, what I do is not a sin because “I don’t believe it’s bad”. Aristotle, one of my favorite philosophers, worked hard to develop a non-theist system of ethics that, probably without even knowing it, most atheists follow. I believe that some personality traits are due to nature & some to nurture…but I’m not certain that I believe either has anything to do with virtue.

  And, finally, I don’t believe that the universe ever began. Nor do I believe it will end. That frees me up to think about other things

• 47 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 11:06 pm

  So when discussing this post with my wife, she brought to mind the point that i was relatively tactless when discussing “…if consciousness ends at the grave..” i didn’t mean to come off as saying were i not to believe in god, i would never do a nice thing in my life. what i was trying moreso to shoot at was god is my reason for moral boundaries. whereas from what i can tell society, or nurture with the contibution of nature, would be the main cause of moral boundaries without it. I would love to be corrected here, why is it you are a good person? i would willingfully answer if asked the same. but for now, i’ll progress.
  My views on the bible. the bible is a collection of misinterpreted works, writen by inspired men, but abridged and manipulated for the gain of prideful men. constantine did a lot of good progressing everything bad about christianity.. At any rate, i believe in direct inspiration, which would aid my interpretation. i think objectively about every aspect of my life to get as accurate as a perception as i can. the bible is a tool, not a god. (one of my beefs with extreme christians)
  because of revelation the bible is not left to the interpretation of men. just as the qur’an can be misconstrued to create islamic extremism groups, the bible can have the same tendancy. you can’t blame it on god, or allah, its mans fault. which brings me to my next point. religion isn’t the sole cause of death and destruction in this world. everything you can attribute to religion has the common thread of prideful and egotistical men. religion has been a scapegoat and an excuse for years. we could dip into the councel of nicea, and the hidden motives of true tyrants, but i don’t think it would prove or disprove gods hand.
  I also would like to point out that i’m not nice to people because it gets me something in the life to come. i don’t believe thats true, infact i think its counterproductive. i’m nice to people because in my system of beliefs i am no more than equal to every one of my kindred brotheren. if we are all gods childeren we are inherently family. to me that is a bond that makes me want to help people. makes me want to cry when i can’t.
  to finish, the old testament is riddled with pain and maldition, but what you haven’t brought up much of is the new testament. wherein things like slavery and genocide aren’t really discussed. would it not make sense to focus on the updated version of thiesm?
  At any rate, thank you again for this conversation.

• 48 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 11:10 pm

  PS
  “No. Life itself is the point. That’s my belief. I’m not asking you to share it only that you respect it.”
  I love that you said that. I do respect it. infact that is why i posted here to begin with, to pick up a deeper understanding of it.
  on the other side of the coin. I believe in god, and as a wise man once said, i’m not asking you to share it only that ou respect it.

• 49 cameron // Feb 6, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  Jane, The definition of virtues i was leaning toward was an internal moral compass. and whether it was cultivated by genetics, or social upbrining. but morality, atleast in the christian sect, has alot of skewed meanings. so i avoided the word.
  Very interesting by the way, so is your belief along the lines of reincarnation? or less structured more like rain becoming part of another organisms life cycle, to later evaporate and begin the process again?
  Very harmonious.
  I’ve read some arostotle, and love the guy, but my extent of his works are mainly in the “elements” book. Do you have any works specifically you would suggest i read?
  And i love the thoreau-esc “simplicity” approch to the conceiving of the universe. also, i’m envious of the non-novel length of your post, i’ll try and be more concise in the future.

• 50 On Civilized Debate | Mind on Fire. // Feb 7, 2008 at 7:58 am

  […] Comment from Sam on the Ten Common Misconceptions about Atheists post: Wow, I just finished reading this whole discussion, and I’ve got to say that I got more out of reading this than hours of Sunday School. Cameron, Mark, and Wendy, your civilized debate gives me hope in a world where the many talking heads wouldn’t dream of having such a respectful and orderly argument. […]

• 51 cameron // Feb 7, 2008 at 10:22 am

  Wow sam, i can’t speak for mark john and wendy, but that is one of the greatest compliments i could’ve been given.

• 52 Nicolas // Feb 7, 2008 at 11:20 am

  I am an agnostic, but after reading this I am seriously thinking about becoming an atheist.

  Babies, mmmm, yummy!!!

• 53 Bruce // Feb 7, 2008 at 12:43 pm

  Doesn’t the square root of negative one prove that’s there’s a god, oh wait I guess that’s why we call it an “imaginary” number.

• 54 Frankie // Feb 7, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  Hahah.

  I’m sure any theist readin’ that wouldn’t even think you were being sarcastic when talking about the baby eating and stuff xD

  A sad truth…

• 55 Squilax // Feb 7, 2008 at 1:15 pm

  I just wanted to point out that I am an atheist and I do in fact hold orgies.

  Thank you, that is all.

• 56 Thomas // Feb 7, 2008 at 5:17 pm

  John, you realize that part of your reads “Like f[REDACTED REDACTED]s C[REDACTED REDACTED]t we do.” It is in number 5. For som reason, I have seen things like these popping up all over the place on blogs. It is done mostly by the DHL, so, I’m assuming they think you’re a terrorist. Careful.

• 57 Emily // Feb 7, 2008 at 9:06 pm

  aw the [REDACTED] part was my favorite… tell me that’s untrue, thomas

  im probably just pseudo-atheist stumbler, and interested in meeting squilax. i enjoyed this entry

• 58 Brian // Feb 8, 2008 at 12:20 am

  Another viewpoint on the significance of the first 3/4 commandments.

  God does not set up the commandments to get Himself something He needs. He gives them to fulfill a need in ourselves. Most people can see the practical benefit of later commandments, as they deal mainly with other people. The first group are of similar benefit, but they deal with God. So I guess for a minute we’ll all have to accept as a working hypothesis that God is real and gave these commandments to Moses. (If He isn’t then there’s no point in questioning His motives.)

  First, the “no other gods, no idols” bit. Why is this good for us? If God is who and what He is depicted in the Torah, then praying to idols and false Gods isn’t going to get us anywhere. It’s similar to the problem many non-theists have with theistic prayer. If these gods are just products of our desires or imaginings, then praying to them is futile, and it leads us to neglect our relationship with the “true” God, who created us, preserves us, and loves us.

  The misuse of God’s name may be a bit harder to justify, but I think I can do it best with some mundane analogies. First, an unfounded assertion: Names have power. Words have power. Not mystical magical “Hah now I have your soul” power. They have power to the speaker. The promised Example. My wife’s name is Sarah. I cannot say that name in the same tone of voice as other words, or other names. I couldn’t even type it just then without it looking different (just to me) from all the other words around it. At my work, we recently hired another woman named Sara. I avoid calling her by name, because I don’t think I can do it without affection dripping from my voice, and if I could, I’m not sure I want to. I want my wife’s name to be special. I don’t ever want to take her, her name, or the way we say “I love you” for granted. The commandment is something like that. In the Bible, God has formed a covenant, which is a family bond, like a marriage, with His people, and moreover, has given them His name. That name, and that bond, should be special to them, and to us, and if we misuse or presume upon that relationship, it will suffer.

  As to the Sabbath, if anyone surrounded by our workaholic nonstop 24/7 culture of labor, consumption, and unrestrained ambition can’t appreciate the value of a day when the first rule is “STOP WORKING, FOR MY SAKE!”, I don’t really know what else to say in its defense.

• 59 Stu // Feb 8, 2008 at 2:23 am

  Hmm it’s all very well to say the sabbath is more for us than it is for God. Try telling that to the old man who was stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath.

  “I’m sorry, we’re going to have to kill you. For your own good!!”

• 60 Nicolas // Feb 8, 2008 at 4:57 am

  Some people say God like we should take it for granted.

  Don’t like that…

• 61 Mark // Feb 8, 2008 at 7:55 am

  Sorry I’ve been out of the loop lately but very busy. And Thanks, Sam for the compliments. And thanks to Cameron for some kind and thought provoking words. You’ve helped me better understand my own morality.

  But I’d like to reinforce what Stu just said about Brians post. I think this speaks to the point Wendy and others were making above.

  The Ten Commandments were written 3000 years ago. They had a meaning for about 2500 years that meant a certain thing. The first 4 of those regulations being about god. But analysis by modern (post Freudian) man suggests something primitive about a god who would make 40% of his regulations about himself, so Theologians, as alluded to by Brian, have done some re-interpretation of those “regulations” so they reflect better on that god. God is made more “humane” thru the analysis done by modern humans.

  Again, the Bible was written by men, for men, and now needs to get a modern “what he really meant” interpretation to better fit in with 21st century morality and philosophy. And that 21st century of morality does have some connection to that Bible, but is CERTAINLY not based upon it. (Hence the current illegality of slavery and stoning of those who work on the Sabbath nor the execution of kids who talk back to their parents. All perfectly fine Biblical proscriptions.)

  I think the point of “thinking atheists” is, if god was so all knowing and powerful, why would his word need such intensive interpretation and then reinterpretation?

  The most logical answer is because it wasn’t written by an omniscient being. It was written by a bunch of people who meant well. I say we thank those people, particularly that Jesus guy
  (if he really existed) who made some wonderful points about morality, and move on.

  To paraphrase (St) Paul, it’s time for the human race to put aside the things from it’s childhood, particularly when those things can drive some believers to fly planes into buildings and others to deny 10% of the population from loving relationships. Etc etc etc.

  The human race was in it’s infancy for millennia, thru the help of Christianity it made it thru it’s adolescence, now it’s time to grow up and put aside the “things of the child”.

  If people found their proscription in life to care for their fellow man rather than trying to interpret what MY religion wants me to do versus what YOUR religion expects you to do, we would all be a lot better off.

  Just a thought.

• 62 Wendy // Feb 8, 2008 at 7:08 pm

  a few quotes I absolutely love:

  ” I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.” –Steven Roberts

  ” It is not as in the Bible that God created man in his own image; quite the contrary. Man created God in his own image.” — Ludwig Feuerbach

  — I have to insert this one because I love Gene Roddenberry so much–

  “We must question the story logic of an all powerful, all knowing god, who creates faulty humans, and then in turn blames them for his mistakes.”

  I just had to share.

  Peace

• 63 Wendy // Feb 8, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  And….one of my great fears: Intelligent Design. This frightens me a little, with the science we have today. True, the theory of evolution is still a theory, as compared to the scientific data that proves all blue eyed people are not only related, but are descended from the same individual.
  http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:R69eVZ9QUaMJ:www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2008/02/06/the-family-tree-of-blue-eyed-individuals/+blue+eyes+descendants+genetic&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
  But…I believe Darwin. There is far more data to support the theory of evolution; hence, faith. To have faith is a good thing for some, but when that faith would establish a school of learning in which my child was not being given all the information available, my son wouldn’t have been properly educated. Being given as an optional study, not a problem. But as the default scientific curriculum? Oh God (pun intended, no offense intended) that scares me. And, the religious right are far more dedicated to turning up at the polls.

• 64 Tonya // Feb 8, 2008 at 10:19 pm

  I must say I stumbled here and thoroughly enjoyed the rhetoric exchanged. Humor, thoughtful points and discussion in a friendly fashion.
  Very well-put blog. Thanks for sharing!

• 65 xJane // Feb 9, 2008 at 10:57 am

  Stu: in Brian’s defense (defense of theists is something I get from my oh-so apologetic parents, much as I try to defy deny it), no less a theist (tho we could argue that label) than Jesus said it’s okay to work on the Sabbath if you really have to: better to sin than to die.

  And as to words having power, Brian, that’s a very Jewish (and therefore xian) concept. It’s exactly why YWHW is spelled in such a manner as to keep it from being pronounceable. It’s exactly why Adam named the animals (and Eve). It’s part of why I desperately want to change my middle name.

  Although I do have problems with biblical scholars who say that the bible makes as much sense now as then because god is all knowing about past, present, and far future. If we accept that some of the commandments (don’t eat pork) really did make sense millennia ago but really don’t right now, we might see a sharp decline in religious violence (esp. against non-religious and women).

  House, my favorite television atheist, took on a pair of Hasidic Jews in a recent episode and described the commandments as follows (possibly paraphrased, but to the best of my ability to remember): “You follow all 600 of God’s commandments, right? [613] Do you understand them all? [It takes years of study…] But you follow the ones that you don’t understand because the ones that you do understand make sense and they were all written by the same god.” Which of course brings to mind the sheer number of authors of the bible when you get right down to it. Perhaps the pork one was written by an unsuccessful beef farmer who wanted a larger share of business (perhaps the milk-and-beef one was written by the disgruntled pig farmer).

  Finally, Wendy: thank you for those quotes, I shall have to steal some of them for use in future arguments.

• 66 sebass // Feb 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm

  thank you, you made my night

• 67 Matt // Feb 10, 2008 at 5:29 am

  Previously when anyone raised the subject of eating babies, I thought of Dean Swift and felt intellectual. Now when anyone raises the subject of eating babies I think of Dr Evil and Fat Bastard and feel like drinking a beer… :oD

  BTW, outside the USA and perhaps Canada the “Baby Back Ribs” thing with Fat Bastard just made people go: “Huh?” ;o))

• 68 xJane // Feb 10, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  oh, wow, I made that last comment while skipping about 10 others.

  Cameron: please be disabused of the notion that I am often continuously spongy like the interior of a stem. I just as often ramble on for no reason. But thank you (Although comments made from work tend to be shorter.)

  My beliefs are many and varied but probably fall into the “less structured” than “along the lines of reincarnation”. I don’t believe that I’ve ever been any of the Cleopatras, but I’m sure that part of me was part of her, either physically or spiritually (some of my favorite veggies likely came from Egypt).

  My recommendation for works of Aristotle is either his Nicomachean Ethics or just about any of Averroes’ commentaries. He was a very astute scholar of Aristotle & brought a monotheistic bent to some of Aristotle’s teachings that still appeals to many Christians.

  Finally: the universe. The everything. In the same class that I met Aristotle & Ibn Rushd, I encountered Aquinas’ “proofs” of God. I call them quote-proofs-unquote because they’re only likely to make sense to someone already in a monotheistic world-view. My favorite was: “the universe exists; either it began or it has always existed; since it can never have always existed, it must have begun; it must have been begun by God; therefore, God.” Thomas lost me at “since it can never have always existed”, especially since this is antithetical to one of his proofs of God (that He always existed). Infinity just makes sense to me. More so than an actual beginning and an actual end. Infinity exists, this is something that theists and non-theists alike can agree on (how high can you count? how much love does God embody?). I just apply it to existence.

• 69 xJane // Feb 10, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  Cameron (49): I managed to make my last post without reading your #49! Herewith, find my response:

  I now understand your reticence to use the words “ethics” or “morality” because they have an “ethical” or a “moral” meaning behind them In general, here at MoF, we assume ethics & morality to be non-theist unless specifically noted.

  My beliefs are many & varied but probably lean more toward “less structured” than toward “reincarnation”. Reincarnation is a system of thought that is familiar, so it can be useful when discussing my beliefs broadly. But I don’t believe that I’ve ever spiritually been any of the Cleopatras except in the fashion that I may ever have physically been any of them (I’m sure some of my groceries come from Egypt).

  “Very harmonious.” Thank you I try.

  I always recommend Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics when asked, since I think it’s the clearest form of deist ethics, one of his more accessible works, and is my favorite. But any of Averroes’ commentaries on Aristotle are also worth it. He brings a monotheistic angle to Aristotle’s teachings that many Christians are very comfortable with.

  Ah, life, the universe, & everything. Never as a more redundant phrase been repeated so oft. Thomas Aquinas’ “proofs” for God have always confused me since they are only “proofs” for people who already have a (mono)theistic world-view. My favorite, and one I have co-opted to define my own belief about time, goes (broadly) as follows: the universe exists; either it has always existed (infinity) or it was begun/created; since infinity does not exist, it was begun/created; it can only have been created by god; therefore God. I get lost in the argument “since infinity does not exist”, since it is a concept I have always been comfortable with. It is also a concept that is believed in by everyone, theist or non-theist alike (how much love does God embody? what is the biggest number?). I simply apply it to time/the universe. I do not believe it was created or begun. The Big Bang, which is a useful tool, cannot have been the beginning: else what Banged? I could get into here my beliefs about hourglasses, which fits in nicely with Big Bang & Universal Expansion, but won’t, since it’s not real relevant except to prove the waste of concerning oneself with the Beginning, whether from a theistic or scientific standpoint.

  And please be disabused of the notion that I am frequently similar to the spongy inside of a plant stem. Although comments posted from work tend to be shorter I enjoy your comments, of any length.

• 70 Peter // Feb 11, 2008 at 3:35 am

  Wendy: “True, the theory of evolution is still a theory”
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
  People mix up the words theory and hypothesis, as they are the same in everyday use, but not in science.

  Cameron: I am ‘good’ and moral due to my evolution. An organism that lives only for itself is not ‘designed’ (not implying a creator) to survive.
  Consider, if evolution is true it is an explanation on why we survive. Humans that do not work with other humans will not pass on their genes. Therefore if it is in their nature to be unco-operative this nature will die out. If it is because of nurture, then these ways of nurturing (most likely learned from their parents) will not survive either. Therefor we survive because we are built to survive. Everyone on the earth today is the result of the co-operation of two (or more) people. Can’t dispute that.
  Now, the reason why I am good is because you need to be to interact with other humans. If you are not productive for the community, you will most likely me expelled. So an ‘evil’ man who might harm others will not be able to pass on his genes if it runs counter to the wants of the community (In most cases).
  So I am the prduct of good conduct, due either to nature or nuture, and these teaching will usually be passed on, allowing the community to live on.
  When bees attack they must sacrifice their lives. And it takes something like 1000 bees (killer variety) to kill an animal as large as a man.
  But if all bees were selfish, the hive wouldnt survive. The bees sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but I think all experts would agree that it is not a consious choice on the part of the bee. Its an instinct. In most our or moral codes, the bees have preformed a selfless and good act. They are moral creatures. Yet can they really be called so? For it is not a choice they make, it is a reaction.
  I think the same could be said for us. Ethics and morals are just a name put to these instincts. No-one ever told me rape was wrong. Never seen it, had it, know some one affected by it. Yet I do not like it, without any teaching on the subject matter. My parents never raised me with a moral code, yet I have one. The only rules pertained to fighting with my siblings and my bed time.
  I went to a multi-donominational school (you may have guessed already that I cant spell) and learned about all different world religions, yet I wasnt tought the moral code they follow.
  Obviously, my morals come from somewhere else.

  I accept the Big-Bang ‘Theory’ (That word again!) as there is evidence to support it (Read the book by Simon Singh) and it has the exact same flaw as the god hypothesis has, the start.

  Also, if I knew the chrisitian god to exist, I wouldnt worship him. How can you love something you dont know? Or cant understand?
  Also, as for respecting god, or religion, I cant do that. Respect, as far as I can determine, is the assumption of good faith on the part of the respected.
  The only assumption I deal with is that most of the data from my senses is correct.

  “what do you believe about life after this life?”
  Surely the whole notion of infinte life after this one totally reduces the value of our time now. Why cry over death, when you will meet the person in a couple of decades? Why does god need to test us?
  Im gonna donate my body to science, if it is in a fit condition. It will provide a use!

  “if god is omniscient, then he has a purpose”
  This is a unexplained leap in logic.
  And surely he would know the outcome of any actions, thus he wouldnt need to do them.

• 71 Abner Little // Feb 13, 2008 at 8:07 am

  I was raised in the christian right, but never have I heard any of these misconceptions…

  Common? Really?

  Man, I guess I grew up more liberal than I thought.

• 72 xJane // Feb 13, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  Abner: I’m sure it varies from rightwinger to rightwinger. From my parents alone I heard 1, 2, & 4-9. But you’re right, “common” is in the eyes of the beholder…

• 73 John // Feb 13, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  This is satire, folks, satire…

• 74 Tim // Feb 15, 2008 at 7:58 am

  I’m gonna have to say #2 is wrong.
  We can’t hate what doesn’t exist.

• 75 Frank // Feb 18, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  8. Without God, we lead gluttonous, hedonistic lives, throwing orgies all the time.

  That is this athiest right here!

• 76 Elton // Feb 23, 2008 at 10:46 pm

  11. we spend way to much time worrying about something we don’t belive exists.

• 77 Nat // Feb 24, 2008 at 10:54 am

  I know this was mostly just a joke and all in fun, but it’s a bit offensive. As someone mentioned in an earlier comment, a common misconception of Christians is that we actually believe these things.

• 78 Ben // Feb 25, 2008 at 10:45 am

  12. We show how naive we are to think logic and reason are welcome in the realm of faith.

• 79 xJane // Feb 26, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Peter: I love your definitions of both (atheistic) morality & respect.
  The first, that morality is instinct, has some basis in science (see: ape studies where it is discovered that charity is good for the tribe) and is a wonderful way of getting around Aristotle’s annoyance that all morality must come from the gods or some nebulous “highest good”.
  The second, assumption of good faith on the part of the other party, is one that I need to work on. Thank you for that reminder.

  Ben: so true.

Leave a Comment