Response to Peter
I am taking a break from the Origin of Religion series this week for two reasons. The first is that I seem to be a lot more interested in it than my readers are. The second is that I want to waste no time in replying to a theist who commented this morning on my Statement of (dis)Beliefs. I will address Peter’s comments point by point.
You know, one of the things that I have noticed about my many visits to a fairly large number (sorry, don’t know how many, have not been counting) of ‘atheist’ websites and blogs, are the very small number of people who actually visit them, this conclusion of mine being based upon the fact that I always come across the same people leaving messages on them (ex. ‘boywonder’, ‘vyjack’, ‘delta’ et cetera).
So, you spend a lot of time visiting atheist sites. Why, exactly? Could it be that deep down inside you’re looking for the truth? Are you just argumentative by nature? Anyway, I actually have quite a lot of readers. In any group, there is a vocal minority that will dominate any discourse. However, given the fact that my site is receiving about 3,000 visits per week, and I find it hard to believe that boywonder, vjack (not vyjack) and delta are each visiting 1,000 times per week, I have a significantly wider reader base than what you’re seeing in the comments. If any of you lurkers out there want to back me up on this one, I would appreciate a comment on this post, even if it’s just an “I’m here.”
Can I conclude from this that atheism, which it’s practitioners claim is not a ‘belief system’ even though it has it’s very own ‘Ten Commandments’ now - a Statement of (Dis)beliefs, is well and truly in decline as a belief system? Could one of the primary reasons for this decline be the simple fact that, ultimately, it’s arguments against the existence of, for want of a better term, God, are so pathetically weak?
First of all, my Statement of (dis)Beliefs is in no way a list of commandments. In fact, not one of them tells anyone to do anything whatsoever. Furthermore, if you took the time to read the introduction, you would know that this is a list of “10 statements that sum up my beliefs and biases.” It is not intended to be applicable to anyone but me.
As for the decline of atheism, the US Census Bureau has a different take on things. On page 55 of the 2004-2005 Statistical Abstract of the United States, you can find some hard numbers. Unfortunately, the change in the number of people self-reporting as “Atheist” between 1990 and 2001 cannot be known, because Atheist was not listed as a choice in 1990. In 2001, however, it was deemed important enough to include. What we CAN see is that the number of people listing “No Religion” increased by 109% over a period in which the population of the United States increased a mere 18.5%. The number of Humanists increased almost 69% over the same period. That doesn’t sound like a decline to me. If you’re going to talk about numbers, bring some numbers.
On your final point, see statement #5. Atheists do not need to prove the non-existence of god. There is no proof of his existence. Show me proof, and I’ll be the first in line to enter the temple and hand over 10% of my paycheck or whatever the big guy wants.
Also, why is it that I very rarely come across anyone on any of these sites who is willing and able to present a view that isn’t something along the lines of ‘yeah, that was telling him! That rotten, ignorant bible-thumper’?
This is your lucky day.
I really liked number 7: “Proof is at my discretion”!!! Do you really expect anyone to go along with this ‘definition’ of proof??? ‘At your discretion’ is just another way of saying, ‘if there is evidence for the existence of ‘the supernatural’ or something like it, I will just close my eyes and ignore it - nothing must be allowed to disturb my blissfully ignorant state of mind’.
Please point out where I say this is a definition. If you can do so, I wholeheartedly apologize. Barring that, let me continue. Again, I think you’ve failed to read everything. “My criteria rely heavily on the scientific method and my senses.” I don’t go around accepting and rejecting proof willy-nilly. If there is solid evidence, physical manifestation, sensory support and or experimental confirmation, I’m very likely to believe something presented to me as “proof.” However, I know of no satisfactory absolute definition of proof (outside of mathematics) that could take the place of an admittedly weak “at my discretion” statement. If any readers have studied logic, majored in philosophy or otherwise have something to offer on this front, please provide me with a link. Either way, if you’re going to believe things based on an ancient folk tale, who are you to challenge my standards of proof?
One last thing. Most (if not all) atheists are among the most strident of supporters of the existence of an ‘objective reality’, and for this the ‘burden of proof’ lies squarely with them; where is the proof that there is, in fact, only one reality that is valid. It can quite easily be argued that each individual is a universe unto her/himself, the manner in which each individual perceives and experiences their version of reality being different to everyone else’s.
So you might just be a figment of my imagination? Thank you. I’ll sleep better tonight with that thought.
But oh, silly me, of course. It is only ‘the scientific view’ that has any merit, a point of view that cannot explain the concepts of justice, truth, beauty, self-awareness, intuition et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but since these ideas have no ‘objective’ reality, do they not exist? According to your clumsy ‘definition’ of reality they dont!
Again, you speak of definitions where I have provided none. Let’s look at the words you’ve chosen, however. Justice is entirely subjective. That’s why we have 12 jurors instead of punching all of the case facts into a computer. Truth is absolute. A statement is true or it is not. Figuring out whether it’s true can be tricky, but it is or it isn’t. Maybe an example of truth would help you. “There is no god.” Beauty, as we all know, is in the eye of the beholder. Self-awareness can have many different definitions. As such, it’s not very useful, and I don’t know what you mean by it. Intuition is bullshit. It’s a trick of the mind like an optical illusion.
Thank you for taking the time to write such an extensive comment, and for being the first theist with the guts to post something of substance here. I hope we’ll hear from you again.
~I AM~
June 19th, 2005 at at 8:10 pm
I’m here. This is my first (and probably last) comment on this site. I’m a professional lurker. FYI.
June 19th, 2005 at at 8:24 pm
I’m here too - and also a lurker by trade.
RE the number of people considered Atheists: I think more people would list themselves as ‘no religion’ if only they cared enough about the subject to decide. I live in Australia, so it may be a little different down here, but I routinely encounter and get to know people who, in a survey count themselves as christians, but I would not consider them as such.
These are people who never go to church, do not even own a bible/cross or any other religious paraphenalia, don’t get their children baptised, don’t pray (at least admit to it) or say grace, or really do anything, own anything, or say anything related to any mainstream religion. But when pressed about the matter say “Well, I guess there’s a god, and yeah I guess I’m christian’.
If they truely believe there is a higher power, I think they would more likely called themselves Agnostic, if only they knew what it meant. For most people, I feel, worrying about the next paycheck, and how to cover their kids university fees tends to rank more important than all this religious hoo-ha.
June 19th, 2005 at at 8:31 pm
I’m another lurker too, and I just want to say how great this site is. I’m ususally too self consious to post on sites like this, but I’m getting better.
June 19th, 2005 at at 9:20 pm
Present.
One quibble… if you are going to take a scientific approach to determining whether god/gods exists, you are looking for sufficient evidence, not proof. Science doesn’t deal with proof. That’s math and pure logic. Science deals with evidence. What you probably mean to say in #7 is that the validity of evidence is at your discretion.
June 19th, 2005 at at 9:27 pm
Also Present.
June 19th, 2005 at at 9:31 pm
Danny here. Lurking for now, but I might be more active when I’m not too lazy.
June 19th, 2005 at at 9:42 pm
are the very small number of people who actually visit them
Then I would say he hasn’t been around. If he has been paying any attention at all to atheists, he will know that #1 we are not joiners. And that is our biggest fault. And the few that do comment, are the ones that are trying to get themselves out of the mold. There are many of us out here, we just dont’ always comment. And many of us are visiting the sites, this and others. We simply just don’t always comment as we should.
June 19th, 2005 at at 10:14 pm
Lurker reporting in.
June 19th, 2005 at at 10:40 pm
I’m here. I’m generally a non-contributing lurker.
June 19th, 2005 at at 11:30 pm
I lurk over to your site every day. Keep up the great work!
June 20th, 2005 at at 1:33 am
I’m here too. I mostly lurk, but I’ll comment if I feel I have something to add. On the subject of this post, from the comment:
“It is only ‘the scientific view’ that has any merit, a point of view that cannot explain the concepts of justice, truth, beauty, self-awareness, intuition et cetera, et cetera, et cetera”
Hogwash. There are good evolutionary reasons for concepts (and emotions) such as these. Peter needs to do a little research into “the scientific view” before making such assertions.
June 20th, 2005 at at 1:38 am
Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary posted above, I’d like to tell everyone that those 3,000 hits are all mine.
something like it, I will just close my eyes and ignore it - nothing must be allowed to disturb my blissfully ignorant state of mind
Why would I want to ignore the truth if the truth were that I had an all-powerful best friend who loved me and would make sure that I was taken care of. Why would I not want to live with my friends and family forever (except of course for the reasons of boredom, etc outlined in AK’s blog Kill The Afterlife). If there truly were a god, then I would really be screwing myself over (eternally) by not recognizing it. But anyway, I’m sure you didn’t think that through, you’re probably just angry.
Oh yeah, and nice post I AM. You really told that rotten, ignorant bible thumper!
June 20th, 2005 at at 5:02 am
Present!
June 20th, 2005 at at 7:20 am
Another lurker here.
June 20th, 2005 at at 7:29 am
I’m here! Although, I might not exist in Peter’s subjective reality
But he can believe in that if he wants, along with his giant sky wizard friend.
June 20th, 2005 at at 8:10 am
Thanks for the backup. It’s good to hear from my… uh… congregation?
To the lurkers: I always believed you were there, not just because I wanted you to be, but because the logs gave me strong evidence of your existence. However, a lurker is a very complex system. Since you couldn’t possibly just have arisen on your own, I have to assume Delta created you all.
Keep it coming. Let’s make this statement to Peter as loud as we can.
June 20th, 2005 at at 9:15 am
Ahoy, semi-lurker here.
I really enjoy your ‘atheist’ website. (I wish Pete would tell us how an ‘atheist’ website is different from an atheist [no quotes] website).
June 20th, 2005 at at 9:21 am
Spork Boy present and accounted for, sir. Permission to continue lurking and learning, sir!
June 20th, 2005 at at 9:27 am
Permission granted. Now return that spork to the mess tent.
June 20th, 2005 at at 9:51 am
I’m here!
Concerning the discussion of Sporks: such a masterfully crafted item must be inspired by the Divine. Is not the spork evidence of Him?!
June 20th, 2005 at at 9:54 am
Lurker so far, here to be counted.
June 20th, 2005 at at 10:53 am
here
June 20th, 2005 at at 11:26 am
I’m here. I never say anything, just read, read, read.
Keep up the good work!
June 20th, 2005 at at 12:13 pm
Lurking. E Pluribus Unum
Oh and Peter, is it ok if we call you Dick!
June 20th, 2005 at at 12:43 pm
Here, here!
And, just to comment on the lack of comments - well, it isn’t exactly unheard of. I have friends who manage different kinds of blogs - personal, techie, etc. - and, while they may have hundreds or, in a few cases, thousands of subscribers to their feeds, they may only get 5 comments a month. Same thing w/the many Yahoo groups I’ve moderated over the years.
I’ve been a near-daily visitor for a few weeks now. The Raving Atheist featured a link in one of his posts a few weeks back, and seeing as I’m always on the lookout for good atheist/freethinker sites, I just had to check ya out. You got a good thing goin’ on here
June 20th, 2005 at at 1:23 pm
I can’t remember if I’ve posted before, so I’m not sure if I’m a lurker or not. But I’m here. Great site.
On to my response to some of Peter’s points.
His talk about his not seeing many visitors to the site is irrelevant. If he means that since there are not many visitors, there are not many atheists, that
is false. If he means further that since there are not many atheists, atheism is is not true, that also is false. It seems to me the only reasons he has
for bringing up the (supposed) lack of visitors are false or meant to belittle, none of which add anything to the conversation.
On proof:
I majored in philosophy as an undergrad, and paid particular attention to the philosophy of science, so I have a little bit to say in this area.
Proof is an oft used, but misunderstood word. People mean different things by it, and this leads to problems. Someone may use proof one way, but I think
they are using it another way, so I don’t understand what they are saying. If I don’t understand the way someone is using a certain word, I can’t hope to
understand what they mean by a certain sentence, and so I fail to understand what they are trying to communicate to me. This is not a good situation.
For example, someone (we’ll call him George)) may say he has a valid argument that the sky is pink. You may say that is impossible, since obviously the sky
is blue. But he might be using “valid” differently then you are. For you, valid means “true in the world.” For him, valid means “the conclusion flows
logically from the premises.” So his argument might go something like this:
(premise) If there is a world, the sky is pink.
(premise) There is a world.
(Conclusion) Therefore, the sky is pink.
The conclusion follows from the premises. To George, that means his argument is valid. For you, with your idea of validity, you don’t care that the
conclusion follows from the premises, the sky is blue! The first premise if false, you say, the argument is invalid! Here you are using validity the way
George might use the word “sound.” In a philosophical context, a sound argument is a valid argument (one where the conclusion follows from the premises)
where the premises happen to be true in the world. So George’s argument might be sound if it was true that “if there is a world, the sky is pink.”
So in a philosophical context, valid just means the conclusion flows from the premises, but it might not really apply to the world, if the premises are not
true. A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are true.
As you can tell, it is best to be clear about what we mean by certain words. This is often done in research papers, especially philosophy papers since
philosophy tends to use common words in technical (non-common) ways.
When theists think of “proof” I think they have something like the idea of mathematical proof in mind, even if they never consciously connect the two. They
think of proof as iron clad, and if you argue for something and you can properly conclude something, then you have “proved” it, and no one can say it is not
true. After all, you proved it! Moreover, it is true for all time.
I do not think scientists use “proof” the same way. I would say they use it tentatively, so if scientist says “I proved X” they are really saying “I
tentatively proved X.” The scientist might not even be conscious of this, but if pressed he will most likely say that, like all scientific conclusions, his
proof is tentative. Of course, there will be exceptions. Or people who say their conclusions are not tentative might be in the majority (I don’t know, I
haven’t asked every scientist). But ideally science and scientists work with tentative proofs.
The idea is that conclusions can always be revised in light of new evidence. Newton’s laws that we all learned in physics class survived scientific tests
and experiments for hundreds of years, until an unknown clerk challenged them. The clerk’s conclusions have been tested again and again, and all the results
seem to show that he was right. That clerk was Einstein. Newton’s laws work perfectly fine for predicting the behavior of objects up to lightspeed (I
think, it’s something like that. I can’t remember exactly where it breaks down). After that, though, they don’t predict what we see in our experiments, but
Einstein’s equations do. So scientists don’t think they have proved something for all time- new evidence might come in that causes them to revise their
theories. Now, it’s not like scientists think reality changes. It’s just our understanding of it that does.
Now, let me get back to how I think theists use proof. In my experience, they use it in a “rationalist” context. I know some of the people on this site will not associate theism with
rationality, but this is just another example of people using words differently. Here I mean the idea that reason is the source of knowledge. Rationalists
think that through logic alone you can learn truths about the world. Just by sitting in your chair (or oven, in the case of Descartes) and thinking really
hard, you can learn about the world outside. This type of rationalism is opposed by empiricism, which says knowledge of the objective world should be based
on observation (sometimes aided by rational argument) and not merely deductive logic. Most science the way we commonly think of it (chemistry, biology,
physics, etc.) is empirical.
With all this in mind, let us turn to Peter’s statements:
“One last thing. Most (if not all) atheists are among the most strident of supporters of the existence of an ‘objective reality’, and for this the ‘burden of
proof’ lies squarely with them; where is the proof that there is, in fact, only one reality that is valid. It can quite easily be argued that each individual
is a universe unto her/himself, the manner in which each individual perceives and experiences their version of reality being different to everyone else’s.”
Now, it is not clear what version of “proof” Peter is using here. That is no fault of his, people don’t tend to be clear about their use of ambigious words,
especially if they are not aware of the ambiguity. I will assume he is using a rationalist version of “proof,” where he believes you can learn something
about the world by logic alone, without observation. Why the burden of proof is on atheists to prove there is one objective reality seems kind of silly to
me, though at first glance it seems he is using I Am’s statement 5 against him. (IE, atheists say objective reality exists, prove it does). However, I
think the burden of proof here is for those who don’t believe in one reality to prove that there are extra realities. Oh, you can *argue* there are more,
but that doesn’t mean there *are* more realities. See above the difference (in a philosophical context) between valid and sound arguments. I can argue
there are multiple realities, but if one or more of my premises are false, it doesn’t really matter how much I argue, it’s still false.
“But oh, silly me, of course. It is only ‘the scientific view’ that has any merit, a point of view that cannot explain the concepts of justice, truth,
beauty, self-awareness, intuition et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but since these ideas have no ‘objective’ reality, do they not exist? According to your
clumsy ‘definition’ of reality they dont!”
Well, the scientific view has the advantage of being borne out time and time again. Scientific theories often make very successful predictions, theism does
not. Jesus was supposed to return some thirty or so years after his death, Christians are still waiting. Science is the most successful way of answering
questions about the natural world. It makes predictions that often turn out to be true, has enormous explanatory power, leads to technological advances,
etc. I agree science “cannot explain” justice, beauty, and things of that nature. These are things that do not exist in the objective world, they were
created by man. This does not diminish them in any way. My girlfriend is not less beautiful because it is only my opinion. Justice is not less important
because it does not exist outside of human experience. Truth, science has a bit to talk about. I think science is the final arbiter of what is and is not
true in the natural world, the above caveats about reassessing knowledge in light of new evidence being kept in mind. I don’t see how science isn’t able to
talk about self-awareness, and I don’t even know what Peter means about intuition, so I can’t talk about it.
I seem to have gone on for awhile, so I think I’ll stop here. I hope I have adequately responded to some of Peter’s points. At the very least, I hope I
have made it clear that we need to be clear how we use certain words, otherwise we’ll just be talking past each other, or worse, arguing for no reason.
June 20th, 2005 at at 1:35 pm
Lurker popping up out of the smog to say “I’m here”
June 20th, 2005 at at 2:02 pm
And the lurkers come out of the woodwork to be counted. Hooray!
I of course am no lurker. Im one of the vocal minority. Then again, back when I was Christian, I was still vocal. So my vocal-ness never changed, just the side of the fence I was on LOL!
Thanx for the shout out Delta, and thank you to all the lurkers for standing up and being counted. BTW there was a comments poster named “Peter” that I had an exchange with on my blog awhile back. Eventually I got him to concede that there probably was no afterlife. Maybe its the same one?
June 20th, 2005 at at 2:12 pm
ME! I’m here too - this seems to be lurker central *grin*
Thought I’d let you know, T E A, that you, The Raving Atheist and other atheist sites and/or blogs are on my favourites list on every computer that I use - and I check all of them at least 4-5 times a day to see if there are any updates or new comments.
So nuts to you, Peter! *thhhhhrrrrrrrr* (virtual raspberry :))
June 20th, 2005 at at 2:33 pm
Yep, here. Sure, there may be no objective reality. If there isn’t, though, there is no way we can know anything at all. This isn’t exactly proof positive of God. So, sure, believe in your Gods if you don’t believe in objective reality. Just don’t tell us how to live our lives. On the other hand, if you do believe in objective reality, then science is the only way to actually know it.
June 20th, 2005 at at 3:31 pm
Ofcourse Peter sees my cognomen everywhere, I’m omnipresent! A 1000 hits in a day is a bad day for me. Ofcourse, I’m only semiomnipresent when I’m masturbating. It’s too hard to concentrate!
June 20th, 2005 at at 3:33 pm
Just another lurker checking in. I never feel as though what I might have to say is better than the wonderful, intelligent comments I see. All I have is “I” stories that you all can do without. I just wanted you to know I am here and come every day.
Betsy
June 20th, 2005 at at 4:02 pm
I’m here, but I’m hardly a lurker. I may not have as much to say as boywonder (we can’t all be haiku writing dervishes), but I’m still reading even when I’m not talking!
I think that this site is awesome… I AM rocks, and he has a lot of really insightful readers (myself included, of course). What’s not to love?
And Delta, well said on the whole why would an atheist want to ignore God if he were real!
June 20th, 2005 at at 4:56 pm
I’m here!
Since I’ve started talking openly about my atheism I’ve found more of them in my life. I also think that the Christian Right, very soon, will be fighting a back-lash from those of us who admire the Constitution, the First Amendment, and Separation of Church and State.
I don’t comment much on blogs, and there are a great many great atheist blogs, but I do speak my mind in person.
June 20th, 2005 at at 5:05 pm
Just a voyeur — for now.
“See like an artist - but THINK like a scientist!”
June 20th, 2005 at at 5:07 pm
Yet another lurker presenting myself for this informal roll-call. As a dedicated news/opinion junkie I always have to read two or three atheist sites a day as a sort of antidote to the outrageous nonsense available out there (but I love outrageous nonsense; it’s my bread and butter). I’ve never posted here because it’s one of the very, very few blogs that I can read without gnashing my teeth and pulling out my hair. This is, in fact, the first 100% supportive post I’ve written in years. This is somewhat out of character for me, but: Keep up the good work! Love your site! Don’t let them get you down!
Yeesh. See what you’ve made me do?
June 20th, 2005 at at 5:22 pm
I’m rising out of lurkerdom, and I’m pretty sure I’m not a figment of Delta’s imagination.
June 20th, 2005 at at 5:32 pm
*waves*
June 20th, 2005 at at 5:34 pm
I’m here, too. Actually, I’m just about everywhere.
June 20th, 2005 at at 6:51 pm
Hello, I’m here, I’ve been lurking and have been considering contributing for quite some time now. I figure what better time that this instance of solidarity.
The problem with all these religious “evangelical” types is that they fuse (confuse?) so many concepts into dogmatic requirements…They confuse logic with righteousness, they confuse morality with divinity, they confuse justice with vengeance, they confuse charity with ministry.
If they cannot possibly imagine that anyone can process information without accepting their premise. We will always confuse them because they cannot fathom how we think. They’ll never “get” it because they don’t even have the logical tools, free of muddled fear, required to “get” that the world can exist without a bunch of supernatural tripe.
June 20th, 2005 at at 7:34 pm
addict-no-more, thanks.
I consider myself a
lyrical gangsta!
June 20th, 2005 at at 7:34 pm
Whoa, I feel like 30 odd (no pun intended) people just popped out of my cereal bowl. That’s crazy. I never thought there were that many of us.
As for the same vocal minority being found everywhere, I kind of like that. It’s like running into your old friends everywhere.
June 20th, 2005 at at 8:55 pm
skinnydwarf:
Thank you for that excellent comment on proof. For those of you who were scared away by its length, save it for a time when you have 10 minutes to devote to it, and go back to read it. It’s worth it.
Radi:
I’m flattered, but you need to familiarize yourself with RSS. Let the stuff you want come to you so you don’t have to keep checking back.
Betsy:
“I” stories are all any of us really have. We would love to hear some of yours from time to time.
Genghis Dirt:
You are too kind, sir (or madame). I’m glad we’re in such deep accord. I can tell you from experience that it’s better than being in a shallow Civic.
June 20th, 2005 at at 9:20 pm
I’m a lurker standing up to be counted.
June 20th, 2005 at at 11:14 pm
I lurk here often and enjoy your perspective immensely. It’s gratifing to see so many other lurkers. Keep up the fine work.
June 20th, 2005 at at 11:32 pm
On the 10 Commandments comment:
I wish I could say that I was shocked that someone would actually compare your Statement of disbeliefs with the Ten Commandments, but I come across this kind of thinking from theists on a daily basis. It`s as if your personal values could be compared to a `list of atheist beliefs.`
Ridiculous. Perhaps the theist resents your statement of moral autonomy, the idea that an atheist would dare hold his own judgement. A list of 10 several thouand year-old don’ts is to your statements as Genesis is to modern science. No comparison.
The truth is, many theists have their own lists that have little to do with a biblical list of taboos. Thank Reason for that.
June 20th, 2005 at at 11:48 pm
One more point:
“a point of view that cannot explain the concepts of justice, truth, beauty, self-awareness, intuition et cetera, et cetera,”
Yes, it can. These are human concepts. They exist in humans. A subjective reality cannot account for them, as we would not be able to communicate these ideas to each other in a subjective world. Language could not have meaning. Even communication through symbols, body language and grunts could not have meaning.
Beauty does have objective basis. Humans evolved a basic understanding od beauty through evolution. Sure, it has its nuances now, if you want to say it’s merely an intyerpretation of an appreciation for something. BUt there are reasons why flowers look the wy they look. There are reasons that we seek symmetry and tend to see it as beauty. It’s in our evolutionary makeuo.
None of this could have any meaning in the theist’s subjective whim of his God, as the concepts of justice, truth, beauty, etc, are contingent upom god’s whim. We know this of christianity from the bible. Justice means the release of slaves in Egypt, but justice also means the burning of nonbelievers in eternal hell, the killing of children, etc. And, interestingly enough, the concept of the release of slaves has nothing to do with slavery being wrong–only a form of racial selection according to god’s whim. . Justice is only relative to God’s desire.
June 21st, 2005 at at 12:35 am
Lifelong lurker checking in. Love the site!
June 21st, 2005 at at 1:47 am
I’m here, too. And I don’t always comment on the blogs I read, not if all I can offer is a “me too”. Or, if I feel the need to bloviate at great length, I’ll frequently post something related on my own blog. If it seems like only the same few people commenting here, don’t make the mistake of thinking they’re the only ones reading.
I can verify the difference between hits and comments. On my blog, my hit to comment ratio is probably approaching 1000:1.
But, of course, if any theists try to start a flame war, we’ll be ready and waiting…
June 21st, 2005 at at 2:07 am
Here.
I tried to believe in God but I don’t. One day I realized if God were real he’d see through my deception and I be screwed for sure. In other words a loving God would value honesty over false worship, right?
June 21st, 2005 at at 3:28 am
Here… lurking!
June 21st, 2005 at at 10:04 am
Here, but as other people have mentioned, some of us Godless heathen don’t like to join clubs.
Right, back to lurking…
June 21st, 2005 at at 11:55 am
I’m here too!
June 21st, 2005 at at 2:26 pm
Always lurking, rarely commenting and to peter I say:
“One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh”. - Robert Heinlein
June 21st, 2005 at at 2:48 pm
I’m here.
Dont fall into a fallacy of “argumentum ad populum.”
Just because something has a lot of followers, doesnt mean it is right, or wrong.
Lots of people belive in Santa (they are numerous, yet young), and almost all of Europe believed the Earth was flat. Were they right simply by consensus?
No.
“If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” - Anatole France
- Me
June 21st, 2005 at at 4:36 pm
I am an atheist not by choice, but by reason and intellect. I appreciate webblogs such as yours because they not only mirror many of my thoughts, but they are also instructive. You help me find the words to defend my non-belief, and for that I thank you.
June 21st, 2005 at at 6:14 pm
Regular reader. Infrequent commenter.
June 21st, 2005 at at 8:02 pm
Boywonder, thanks for the haiku. It was lovely. I am so glad to see all these fellow atheists lurking about. Of course, I Am might point out that this is part of the problem with atheism. We’re all so reluctant to join in and speak up.
Well, all of us except for Delta, boywonder, myself and a few others. Heh.
June 21st, 2005 at at 9:13 pm
Okay, so there are more of you than I thought. Sorry, my mistake. The reason why I mentioned that it was so difficult to ‘prove’ the existence of objective reality was to make the simple point that, apart from proofs found in mathematics, it really IS difficult (almost impossible actually) to prove much of anything to everyone’s satisfaction. Theists are constantly being told to prove the existence of whatever god they believe in, and when they can’t (or quote some silly biblical verse in support of their argument, which is even worse) the atheists will jump on this and say, ‘Ha! Got you!’ Both sides in this debate remain firmly entrenched in their views, both the fundamentalists and the atheists, so I guess trying to get either side to make a concession or two is perhaps asking for a bit too much.
June 21st, 2005 at at 10:49 pm
Peter, you seem to be a thinker. The problem is (I think) where you are getting your info. Perhaps a little more time and searching around sites like these might help. The apparent nonconcession you are talking about was cleared up quite a while ago. Descartes’ famous “cogeto, ergo sum” might ring a bell (I think, therefore I am). An existential quandry is quite common for most everyone. How the individual handles the apparent crisis is the most important thing( I would call an existential crisis a mid-life crisis). Descartes went way out of his way to prove objective reality. Let me put it this way: Do you believe I am a figment of your imagination? Are you capable of creating an entire world full of illusory information that you somehow do subconsciously and with no effort? How do you already know the illusory information that you bombard yourself with every second of every day? Is this all one big “matrix” designed to fool you? What do you believe is the more likely answer?
June 21st, 2005 at at 11:44 pm
Oops! CogIto est, Cogeto non est. Mia culpa. I screw up english words just as easily.
June 22nd, 2005 at at 12:17 am
Count me in.
I am.
Therefore I am atheist.
June 22nd, 2005 at at 11:13 am
I just want to quickly reiterate what others have said that its good to have a thinking theist here. I hope you stick around Peter, good discussions between opposing views are always more interesting than affirmations among like-minded people.
June 22nd, 2005 at at 1:37 pm
Count in another atheist who reads this blog.
Incidentally, this whole post reminds me of a similar amusing incident that took place long ago on the Usenet forum alt.atheism. A theist named Jim Nichols claimed that there were only three real atheists on the entire forum, since that was all the people who replied to him. As a result, some of the group’s members decided to create an official a.a. Jim Nichols Memorial Atheist and Agnostic List. That list now has over 2000 members on it and the number, last I checked, is still increasing.
June 23rd, 2005 at at 1:34 am
‘Good discussions between opposing views are always more interesting than affirmations among like-minded people’ - Adam.
My sentiments exactly. This site appears to be unique in the sense that I haven’t (so far) been able to find any comments from ‘the other side’ (i.e. ‘believers’), just atheists. This is not a criticism by the way, just an observation (hopefully a correct one) of mine.
See ya…….
As for responding to all of the comments that have been made (64 so far) about what I wrote, well…. where to begin? I will reply to what Matthius said and agree with his observation that, yes, what is true should not (and cannot) be decided by popular consensus, but unfortunately this important point is forgotten all too easily by a lot of people (especially fundamentalists and flat-earthers).
The comment from Boywonder (cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am) is a good place to start searching for objective reality, even if there are those who don’t believe in such a thing (like a teacher I once had, he was a ‘post-modernist’, I had lots of arguments with him in class about this).
The point that Hellbound Alleee makes about language being useless in a subjective world, yes I’d go along with that.
I have to admit that the reaction I got to my post was not what I was expecting (my expectation was that I would be largely ignored), so that was a pleasant surprise
June 23rd, 2005 at at 1:48 am
“I have two bags of oranges in my sack”
Pointless remarks to encourage free thought
June 23rd, 2005 at at 2:11 am
I also lurk here often. I mainly wanted to point out that I love your “Origins of Religions” series, so your not the only one. It’s something I myself have been pondering lately, and your input in much appreciated.
June 23rd, 2005 at at 12:45 pm
There are more of us than you think. Mwuahahhahahahhah!
*shows horns, and waves at Peter*
June 23rd, 2005 at at 4:56 pm
I was waiting for the 2999th to check in so I could put you over the top.
June 23rd, 2005 at at 5:50 pm
Present….
June 23rd, 2005 at at 8:24 pm
Fairly new to the blog, and also a mostly-lurker. Good discussion, fine blog. Alas, a statement near the end of the post pushed a button of mine:
“Intuition is bullshit.”
Depends. There is a kind of intuition that is a quick-access summary of experience, I just now let the answering machine pick up a call because my experience is that nobody I might want to talk to calls at this hour. But I didn’t go through that thought process conscously; my conscious thought was oh, crap, telemarketer, let it ring.
That’s a trivial example, but it works for much more complicated situations which I’ve experienced before. It’s useful for making very quick decisions when those are needed. And is isn’t particularly subjective.
June 23rd, 2005 at at 9:41 pm
Karen, the only people who say that ‘intuition is bullshit’ are those, of course, who don’t seem to experience it. For the rest of us…. well, we know better.
For example, I spend a lot of time on the road (on holidays at the moment), and when I am travelling on a road or highway with a fair amount of traffic on it I can always sense when another motorist is about to do something stupid, like change lanes suddenly without indicating.
Since first acquiring a licence (over 15 years ago) I have never had an accident or even come close to having one, because I always keep my distance from those who I just KNOW are clumsy and careless.
I’m not so sure about your ‘explanation’ for intuition though; it sounds too, um…. scientific (i.e. dodgy). Perhaps it would be better to simply accept it at face value, instead of trying to rationalise it away.
Reason and rationality are overrated in any case. Example: Back in 1940 it would have been perfectly reasonable for W. Churchill to accept the peace terms that were offered to him by Hitler after the fall of France. It, among other things, would have ensured (for a while anyway) the continuation of the British Empire. England, on it’s own at the time, could not have won the war, and the likelihood of a cross-channel invasion was high. The rational thing to do would have been to make peace, but had Churchill done so the whole of Europe, and other large sections of the globe as well, would today be dominated by the Nazis.
Intuition - 1
Reason/Rationality - 0
June 23rd, 2005 at at 10:05 pm
By the way, before anyone responds with ‘oh that’s a silly example, Hitler had already proven himself to be untrustworthy’, just check your facts first. His main focus was on acquiring lebensraum in the East (just read ‘Mein Kampf’ - and no, I’m not a Nazi). He had no real interest in invading England (which prompted Hess’ solo flight to Britain), although there were others (notably Hermann Goering) who did want an invasion.
June 24th, 2005 at at 2:24 am
Karen:
I think we’re saying the same thing. What some call intuition is the unconscious or subconscious application of experience. If I see a stranger, and have a wave of “intuition” that he’s dangerous or untrustworthy, it’s because there’s something about him (face, clothes, facial expression) that’s similar to another person I’ve encountered in the past, and my brain is connecting the dots for me, applying old experience to a superficially similar situation. If that’s how you understand intuition, then it’s a real phenomenon. However, there’s nothing “spooky” or supernatural about it.
Peter:
The traffic intuition you’re talking about is the same thing. Another car makes a subtle move that’s similar to moves made by those who have cut you off in the past. Is there a real pattern there that you brain is picking up on? Very possibly. In fact, I would say that this is probably correct more often than not. At the root of it, though, it’s just your brain doing its thing. I’m not sure where you draw the line between “rationalising it away” and explaining it.
Several hundred years ago, the geocentric model of the universe was the accepted one. However, there were quirks in the movements of certain objects, like planets, that weren’t explained by the model. Do you believe that the geocentric model is correct and that we shouldn’t try to “rationalise” the quirks away with a better model? If we have the capacity to understand something, why would we choose not to?
June 24th, 2005 at at 5:12 am
Okay, I’ll admit I don’t make the most convincing case there; I’ve been becoming a bit careless lately in debates like this. Actually, I don’t suppose as a favour you could delete my last two entries above? They’re kind of embarrassing (and maybe I should find more hobbies, because I do spend too much time on the internet).
Ah well…..
See ya…..
June 24th, 2005 at at 12:04 pm
Sorry. Only spam gets deleted. I have to stand behind my posts, and readers have to stand behind their comments.
Abusive material might also get deleted, but it would have to be really, really bad. I’m big on free speech.
June 24th, 2005 at at 7:09 pm
I am here too. A blog i visit atleast once a week. And i agree with most of the stuff written here.
June 24th, 2005 at at 11:37 pm
Okay.
June 24th, 2005 at at 11:44 pm
Hello. Keep up the good work!
June 27th, 2005 at at 3:23 am
(I am here.) I rarely comment on what I read, though perhaps I should. I feel guilty for not contributing…
June 27th, 2005 at at 5:18 pm
I’m here. Love your site. I only recently discovered it but it’s one of the five blogs I read “religiously”. ; )
Keep up the good work.
June 27th, 2005 at at 10:37 pm
Here! I love reading your insights!
July 8th, 2005 at at 1:14 pm
The point is proven, but I have just found this website. The London bombings happened yesterday and I was looking around the internet for other people who have had it up to HERE with religion, whatever form. A chick was on the subway yesterday telling me about the second coming of JC. I wanted to tell her the dude is dust girlfriend, just like you’re going to be.
Like the work here, I would love to see the Daily Show spin off their “This week in God” segment in to a full 1/2 hour show. There’s so much material to work with.
July 12th, 2005 at at 12:54 pm
I am.
January 22nd, 2008 at at 5:10 pm
austin texas bankruptcy rules…
adrenal assaulted overcrowding adulterers …