Yes, It’s obligatory to thank people on Thanksgiving, but that doesn’t mean those thanks aren’t heartfelt. So here we go.
Thanks:
To Mom, for making it happen
To Dad, for showing the way
To Hildy, for making it bearable (even wonderful)
To Rayanne, for making it worthwhile
To Ed, for leading
To Kathy, for supporting (and fighting)
To Edwin, for the other kind of fighting
To Conrad, for making words sing
To Jim, for learning quickly
To Dave, for taking charge
To Jared, for making it work
To KA, for moderating
To Blair, for keeping us current
To Richard, for above and beyond
To Dennis, for hosting
To the Bloggers, for keeping me honest
To the lurkers, for the hit count
To the members and donors, for paying for it
To Bob, for this idea
To Alanis, for playing god
To Pink, for the title
To everyone else, for forgiving the omission
and God Less Everyone
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious).
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious
Yeesh, another person who don’t get it:
Atheism = NO RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE.
Phreedm is a highly desperate individual….why he post at nogodblog is left up to his delusion….
here’s the US is becoming less delusional at the speed of the information age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#No_religion
Oh, & thanks for the nod, David.
& thanks to the people @ this blog, even though some of them whiten my snowy hair.
KA i hope you had a nice thankgiving.Even though we don’t often see eye to eye on race,zionism for example, i am grateful that you don’t engage in censorship in performing your moderating.
Hey, thanks reason. Obliged & appreciated.
Another report has come out in ireland on catholic child abuse.Talk about moral bankruptcy protecting church image at expense of children’s welfare,shameful just shameful.
And thank you Dave for this blog and the effort it takes to maintain.
Having the normal Thanksgiving discussion with friends and family.
I was wearing my Arrogant Atheist t-shirt. Of course, the topic turns to religion and the idea of the existence of a god. So I put this to them.
So is my argument valid?
Assumptions: Objects exist.
There are, at least, two objects in the universe (one generally thinks there are an uncountable number of objects.) Objects must have at least one“attribute” which must be differentiable. If you cannot tell the difference between two objects, they are the same.
Does god (as an object) posses any of the properties or attributes humans have categorized?
If No: god lacks, mass, color, magnetic moment, spin, etc……..
If god lacks all known attributes:
Can a human conceive of an object’s property or attribute which is differential yet imperceptible?
If no, then all human concepts of gods are, at present,without merit.
If yes, describe the property.
If Yes: What are god’s attributes and how are they differentiable from those that any other god possess?
Humans are not very good at being amateur philosophers. Rather, our minds are adapted towards tangible goals, e.g. avoid that lion, find food, try to mate, form alliances with other humans. The capacity to determine the nature of the universe does not increase our chance of reproduction, therefore this capacity is undeveloped in humans, except perhaps as a low-functioning artifact of other capabilities that are tangibly helpful. That’s why thousands of years of academic philosophy has produced so little in terms of findings that everybody can agree upon. That’s why religious fables became the dominant world view. When it comes to intangible theories, humans obviously do a horrible job of determining truth.
I’d go so far as to say most people are not concerned about the possibility of being factually incorrect. They enjoy the benefits of their group membership, so they’ll continue believing what it takes to maintain that, discounting all counterarguments, no matter how logical they are.
My conclusion is that your philosophical argument may intrigue a handful of academics, but will change zero minds – not even among the academics. I’d say this opinion is well supported by observation.
I’d say thanksgiving is a holiday that atheists can and should co-opt. The annual act of looking around you and realizing the ways you are fortunate is uplifting in an otherwise gray time of year. We should be reminded to give THANKS to those around us who make our lives better and to try to feel SATISFIED if we can say that we are well, safe, warm, loved, or wealthy enough not to go hungry or drink dirty water like over a billion other people at this moment.
This is quite a wholesome contrast with the “you need more stuff from the store” message of that religious holiday in December. Or the fear and threat-based message of the hyper-religious that “god expects to be lavished with praise or he will do bad things to you.”
I’m glad that my winter mentality is about contemplating what is going right in my life and who deserves – and will get – thanks for that, rather than lining up at Macy’s for a 5 a.m. orgy of greed or at the church for an 8 a.m. expression of fear and self-loathing.
I, too, am sorry that this religious holiday in December is consumed with the message that “you need more stuff from the store”. It makes me feel like I need more stuff when I don’t, and hides the deeper message of giving.
At Thanksgiving, we should also give thanks for the food on our tables. We give thanks to our ancestors, who over tens of thousands of years practiced artificial selection on their crops.