Perhaps the most defining response came from Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. In a news release, Johnson called for a boycott of the Emmy awards. Distraught that the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, a private organization, is choosing not to offend 85% of Americans by broadcasting an anti-Christian rant, Johnson wailed, “this is something I’d expect in a nation like Saudi Arabia or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.” Someone needs to give her a copy of the First Amendment – it protects our right to protest objectionable speech.
This quote from Mr. Donahue of the Catholic League, who somehow thinks this is all about them. It’s not. It’s not AT ALL about the Catholic League. It’s about the Emmys not allowing freedom of speech. Sure, the CL can protest speech they find objectionable, BUT they can’t silence it.BTW, Kathy Griffin will be on Larry King tomorrow night.
Evidence,
When did I ever acknowledge the existence of Buddha? I have no idea where you got that idea from.
I consider the historicity of Buddha to be on par with Jesus. Both being unlikely.
To be perfectly honest, most humans don’t fit this description either.
How do you know that Dolphins don’t have superior linguistic skills? How do you know that Felines don’t have an innate desire to explore? How do you know that Birds can’t reason?
Do we really dominate the earth? Don’t we spend a lot of time dealing with the forces of nature? Aren’t we currently terrified about the future of our planet’s climate?
Certainly we’ve done the most damage, but I think it’s a big leap to saying that we dominate the earth.
Even if we do dominate the earth, we won’t forever. The brightest candle burns quickest, after all.
When humanity dies out don’t you think the insects will still be around? Won’t there still be plant matter on earth? Or will we take everything out along with ourselves?
Humanity is no more important than any other species on earth. The only reason we feel significant is because we want to. Isn’t that the definition of ‘ego’?
I thought the question was obvious. How do you know how many deities there are? You’re answering the question by saying “we can’t.”
That’s not really an answer, is it?
If we have no way of knowing the number of deities that exist, why do you only believe in one? How can you reject the possibility that none exist?
I need to clarify my paragraph:
Lets suppose for a moment that Dolphins are better at communicating than we are.
How would we ever be able to explain that? We could look at their methods, analyze their methods, and attempt to understand them. But if they’re more complicated than our capacity to understand we would never be able to emulate their language enough to be able to begin to understand it. It would basically appear as a big mess to us. Coincidentally, that is how it appears to us.
It would be like asking an Atari 2600 to understand and explain the way a Nintendo Wii functions.
There will always be limits to humanity’s understanding. Until we learn to accept that we will continue to fumble blindly in the dark.
The more we learn about the universe around us, the more we learn about the depth of our ignorance. The point that this trend will start to turn around and head the other way is probably a long time into the future.
Hopefully we’ll still be around then.
Alatham,
Here’s your quote:
My impression of your answer is that you would rather ignore Jesus by saying he didn’t exist than taking the time to consider why this figure in history has such an impact on the world (positive or negative). No one’s asking you to follow his teachings, just not ignore him because it’s easier. I think that’s a cop out. I know that you have a very negative view of Christianity (and I can understand why), but I hope you’re not making some “dangerous assumptions” like the following:
*All Christians dislike Atheists
*All Christians are Catholic
*Christians don’t care about the Earth b/c they want to go to heaven.
*All Christians want to force their beliefs on everyone.
*All Christians dislike science.
*All Christians think the Earth is only approx. 6000 yrs old.
*All Christians would rather pray and evangelize than do a good deed.
There’s probably more, but these are a just few that seem prevelent in the minds of non-Christians.
Evidence,
I have no idea how you got that impression.
My impression of Christianity is that the religion was started by whoever wrote The Bible. We have no idea who did, but it certainly wasn’t Jesus.
And I know fully well why Jesus’ story has had a huge impact on the world. It’s because people believe he’s the son of God despite having no evidence.
As for your list of things about Christianity, I don’t believe any of them.
A lot of people (on this blog, especially) speak in broad generalizations because it’s quicker. But I think they’re wrong to do that. I also think they know they shouldn’t, but I haven’t asked.
Besides, who’s the one who’s been using the word “evil-lution?” Doesn’t that imply that everyone who “buys into” evolution is evil?
alatham,
I was just being facetious when I used that. I thought that was pretty clear. I didn’t think it would be taken seriously. But no, I don’t think that everyone who “buys into” evolution is evil.
Do you think the entire Bible was written by one person or group of people, at one time? When I say ‘at one time’ I mean in one lifetime.
No, I believe it was written and re-written many times over the course of many years. It’s a combination of oral history, ancient texts, and not so ancient mistranslations. All sloppily edited together into one volume by an unnamed group of people with questionable motives.
alatham,
Add mythology for a well-rounded out mix.
alatham,
Have you ever read it? At least any substantial portion of it. If so, which parts? I’m wondering how you can make this statement with such surety. Is this your opinion or your findings?
Evidence:
I don’t expect evolution to provide the ‘answers’ – I expect people to supply them. Likely scientists, since religious people simply say “Oh, we don’t know that, let’s let our imaginations spin outta control.”
P.S: this “oh, you’re just being dishonest w/yourself” crap is the usual gambit of the self-smitten theist. Called poisoning the well, BTW.
Can’t speak for alatham, but I have. Substantial portions of it. In fact, it was the bibble that convinced me that religion is sheer, unadulterated crap.
Anyone who, instead of saying ‘God is’, says ‘Is god?’, & actually approaches it from that angle, will find there ain’t no such critter.
I used to approach you folks much like alatham does, but found it mostly useless. Because y’all are (as a rule) dishonest, & play dullard games of semantics whilst giggling amongst yourselves at your supposed cleverness.
You’ve proven no exception to the rule.
Evidence,
Forchrisake, this is so well established; so well known by Biblical scholars (theists) and atheists! I can’t believe you are questioning this!
K.A.,
In regards to
, I absolutely concur.
Evidence,
Yes, I’ve read great chunks of the Bible (I skip the genealogies, but I’m sure that’s common).
As for authorship, I start by noticing that the scholarly near-consensus is that the Old Testament was a bunch of ancient texts compiled by someone (or some persons) called the redactor. The New Testament is generally believed to have been written down sometime after Jesus’ death, mostly (if not entirely) by people who never met him, assuming he even existed (this is not a safe assumption given the lack of extra-biblical evidence).
I’m willing to accept all that.
But you asked how I can be certain. I cannot. There is simply no way to be certain about any biblical findings. Given that, I have to fall back to Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation is that the Bible was written by a bunch of humans who left little to no other writings for us to judge their character with. Since we can’t judge their characters, we can only judge the Bible based on itself.
And judging the Bible based on itself is the #1 reason I don’t trust it. Organized Christianity is the #2 reason.
Any religion that claims to be divinely inspired (by a being who is benevolent) while at the same time possessing a history as terrible as Christianity is clearly deluding itself.
alatham:
Theists such as Evidence play this game often. Demands of absolute certitude, knowing that few such things can be provided. In such areas as science, where the data is in constant flux & variable, for instance.
& sowing the seeds of uncertainty, they play this ploy of divinity, offering the paradox of certitude in serene ignorance.
It’s all semantics for them, as ‘evidence’ has demonstrated – s/he’s twisted many meanings, put words in mouths that weren’t there, & overall, has demonstrated a vast lack of knowledge, erudition, & willful ignorance on multiple subjects.
There’s no being rational w/the irrational, as I always say.
alatham,
I can see where this is a problem for you. Furthermore, I can understand the position you retain on religion. Thank you for giving honest answers to honest questions.
KA,
KA,
This is an ironic argument, seeing these are the same demands you place on religion. I think that’s quite hypocritical. The answers that you think you have are theories, suggestions and ideas. Every answer I’ve given you has been honest. All you’ve done, in many cases, is ridicule most of them and make unreasonable assumptions. Here’s one of them:
You have mostly demonstrated errogant, inconsiderate sentiments which resemble the very behavior you accuse Christians as having. So I don’t think you’re as noble as you portray yourself and many of the other Atheists to be. I don’t know where you get your skewed idea of most Christians, but you should think about redefining it. If I had, for a millisecond, considered being an Atheist, your representation of it would make me stick with the blessed life I live. Good bye.
Evidence:
I’ve done no such thing. Another example of twisting the words to suit your purposes.
Liar.
Thanks for proving my point w/that 1.
Again, you don’t have a clue what the word ‘theory’ means. Typical. We’re in the same boat, you & I. Your epistemology is based on ‘theories’, suggestions, & ideas, as well as mine.
Mine are based on reality & evidence.
You’ve dodged every point I’ve made thus far, which is dishonest.
Tu quoque?
Such as what, exactly? You’ve shown little to no knowledge of evolution, outside of the usual blitherings that we hear from the religious.
& when you say something this incredibly assinine:
You’re obviously a fucking idiot. Why then should I suffer fools gladly?
Awww, did I hurt your wittwe feewings? I tried to be polite, YOU were the 1 going about pissing on other people’s shoes.
You come out swinging, expect to get smacked.
I did none of those things. ‘Painstakingly honest’ was about the only thing I said. I speak only the truth.
I’ve gotten my ‘skewed idea’ from many, MANY similar conversations from theists JUST LIKE YOU. So you re-enforced the ‘stereotype’ 1 more time.
Way to go, Einstein.
& good riddance. We’re better off w/o mental midgets like yourself.
I can’t stand dishonesty: I hold myself & others to that standard, be they atheist or xtian.
If you expected me to start kissing your ass because your feelings are hurt, you’d be better off kissing mine.
More amazing proof of Evidence’s lack of reading comprehension:
Ah, no, a misquote. What was ACTUALLY written, was:
& you accuse me of dishonesty. Shee-it, junior, you got no street cred now.
Shoe’s t’other foot now.