• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gee...classy

greymatters

Muse
greymatters
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
753
It's one thing when a religious person is going through some pain, and asks an atheist for their prayers because they don't realize they're talking to an atheist.

Then there's the real classy version of this move, when they ask for your prayers because they know you're an atheist:

Dean Barnett is in trouble tonight, and he could use a few prayers (even from you godless atheists).
Click to expand...


Note that the original article, about a guy who is dealing with a severe attack of cystic fibrosis, doesn't feel the need to attack people on the basis of their beliefs.

I'm sorry this person is going through such a rough time, especially as cystic fibrosis is particularly nasty, and I can offer my best hopes for him getting through this.

Usually, I'm tempted to post something nasty on a board like this. Then, I read 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On, and the only thing I usually consider after that is posting a link to that article.

(I do like the specific reference to "godless" atheists. This is supposed to . . . what? Distinguish them from some other kind of atheists?)
 
Last edited:
I didn't even know David Wong was on here!

No, folks, I posted that link of my own accord.
 
I think the "godless atheist" part was tongue in cheek. Charles Johnson, the proprietor of LGF, is a staunch nemesis of the ID crowd and his blog has hosted some pretty heated threads over the subject. I've actually seen some religious believers change their minds about evolution on those threads.
 
I read through those and I can agree to them. I'll go even further. The definitions we choose that lack any physical meaning in themselves can nonetheless make or break the people and/or societies based on them. From a strictly physical perspective we can't even say who hit who in an automobile accident. It is strictly a definition giving the ground frame precedence and the relative proximity of traffic control devices and byways. In fact all our laws are purely a list of definitions, not physical laws.

When you look at studies involving cooperation of higher animals (primates mainly) it's not hard to find. However, in controlled studies when the rewards of cooperation are no longer mutual the cooperation breaks down. Neither the benefactor of the cooperation inclined to share or the loser of the cooperation inclined to continue with the cooperation. There exist no moral judgment or hostilities toward the lopsided benefactor either.

This is in contrast to human cooperation. Not only do we cooperate with the assumption of mutual benefit we don't always require it. Perhaps simply because it made us feel good to do so. Surely there is a limit to the resources an individual can expend for the benefit of another. Every individual chooses the limits differently. We also pass moral judgments on those we help to benefit, either by the resources shared or the lack thereof.

Now whether we ascribe this system of cooperation to Gods law or the VMAT2 gene is immaterial. It is at the core of the success of the human race. We certainly can't compete with the bear on their terms. I, an atheist, hold our underlying sense of non-physical morality sacred and need no deity or physics to justify that.
 
jamrat said:
I think the "godless atheist" part was tongue in cheek. Charles Johnson, the proprietor of LGF, is a staunch nemesis of the ID crowd and his blog has hosted some pretty heated threads over the subject. I've actually seen some religious believers change their minds about evolution on those threads.
Click to expand...
Yep. I've participated in a number of those. :)

I think Charles is an atheist himself.
 
greymatters said:
Usually, I'm tempted to post something nasty on a board like this. Then, I read 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On, and the only thing I usually consider after that is posting a link to that article.
Click to expand...

Well, the article does have some fair points, but a lot of it is just full of straw men and is often just plain wrong. "Can't we all just get along" is a great sentiment, but if you try to support it my misrepresenting the views of both sides, you're not going to get anyone to agree with you.

The worst one, that explicitly states what was implied all along is:
The truth has to be somewhere in between.

Right?
Click to expand...

No, wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong. Just because you have two possibilities does not mean they are both equally likely or that the truth is somewhere in between. A lot of the time it simply means one of the possibilities is just plain wrong. Importantly, religion is one of those times. Either god exists or it doesn't. Talking about an inbetween doesn't even make sense - there's no such thing as god slightly existing.

There cetainly are many grey areas in life, and there people who try to paint everything as black and white need this pointed out to them. However, people who try to paint everything grey also need pointed out that black and white do actually exist as well. Insisting that everything is some kind of middle ground is no better than insisting that everything lies on the extreme.
 
Cuddles said:
The worst one, that explicitly states what was implied all along is:
The truth has to be somewhere in between.

Right?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't think the sentiment "the truth has to be somewhere in between" necessarily implies god as deity must be part of that "in between". The division between believers and atheist encompasses much more than simply the existence of a god. To a hard core believer denying the existence of god is the same thing as telling them they are delusional for feeling this sense of morality at the core of their being. We are all often tempted to skirt our own sense of morality, atheist or not, for personal gain. Atheist on the other hand often argue their case on purely moral grounds. I, just a few post above, have conceded that I hold my sense of morality as sacred, yet I am atheist. Is that not an "in between"? I can modify my application of that morality based on what I perceive to be better empirical data but the morality itself is pretty much fixed.

I can easily take exception to notions like his "two kinds of people who attack Christianity" yet his 10 points remains essentially valid in my estimation. It's still not going to stop me from attacking Christianity on many issues, including the existence issue.
 
my_wan said:
I don't think the sentiment "the truth has to be somewhere in between" necessarily implies god as deity must be part of that "in between". The division between believers and atheist encompasses much more than simply the existence of a god.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but atheism is nothing more (or less) than lack of belief in a god (or gods).
Atheists may make claim about morality evolving withing society, but morality itself is not a claim of atheism.

What you seem to be describing are the differences between fundamentalist theists and secular humanists.
This should NOT be confused with atheism vs theism.

The only difference between theists and atheists is a simple one: god does exists vs god does not exist. Anything else that is claimed as a difference between the two groups is misleading.

(for the record, I consider myself to be both a secular humanist AND an atheist)
 
Rodibidably said:
I'm sorry, but atheism is nothing more (or less) than lack of belief in a god (or gods).
Atheists may make claim about morality evolving withing society, but morality itself is not a claim of atheism.

What you seem to be describing are the differences between fundamentalist theists and secular humanists.
This should NOT be confused with atheism vs theism.

The only difference between theists and atheists is a simple one: god does exists vs god does not exist. Anything else that is claimed as a difference between the two groups is misleading.

(for the record, I consider myself to be both a secular humanist AND an atheist)
Click to expand...

Very good point. Yet from a believers viewpoint separating the issue of morality from the issue of existence is being very dishonest. You and I know better but believers honestly cannot make that distinction. Morality is the hand of God in their world view. When they say God spoke to me it wasn't a voice is was a moral compunction. It carries with it the same weight of a spoken judgment as jealousy does when you believe the grounds for the jealousy to be factual. In their world view when you say I'm a moral person that doesn't believe in God you are being facetious. It's an oxymoron like saying I am a moral person who doesn't believe in morals. For this reason for you to tell a believer your not arguing the validity of their morality in any way, only the existence of God, you are perceived to be attempting a facetious trick to avoid the real issue. That is also why they fear atheism so much.

You have to admit that atheist use the morality card to argue their case often enough. Again a facetious trick to the believer pretty much proving in their estimation that you are without morals. If the issue of morality is used on both sides as a central claim against the other side you cannot legitimately separate it. Yes we both know that it is a separate logical issue but morality itself has no basis in physical law, so you can't argue for morality on the same logical precepts that you are using to argue against their God. Hence the occasional threads here asking why murder is wrong. For atheist to stand in opposition to the theist it must necessarily deal with not just the issue of the deities existence but the role that deity plays in the belief system i.e., morality.
 
Last edited:
I think there are obviously some generalisations in the 10 Points article, and if we are being pedantic, I'm sure there are various issues we could raise with some of the assertions, but taken as what it is, and probably as it was intended, it is a heart-warming, hopeful, well intended and often amusing message which makes some very strong points.

Great work, David and thanks Greymatters for posting the link.
 
You're welcome, Egg.

PixyMisa said:
Yep. I've participated in a number of those. :)

I think Charles is an atheist himself.
Click to expand...


Somehow, I'm skeptical of that statement:
Belief in God does not preclude belief in evolution.
Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.
Do not trust those who insist otherwise.

— Lao Stinky
Click to expand...

(Although the quote is attributed to Stinky, not Charles)
 
Last edited:
This sort of thing always reminds me of my favorite line from "The Wild Geese" (spoken by the missionary priest): "God bless you murdering heathens!"
 
jamrat said:
I think the "godless atheist" part was tongue in cheek. Charles Johnson, the proprietor of LGF, is a staunch nemesis of the ID crowd and his blog has hosted some pretty heated threads over the subject. I've actually seen some religious believers change their minds about evolution on those threads.
Click to expand...

Godless defined
god·less (gdls)
adj.
1. Recognizing or worshiping no god.
2. Wicked, impious, or immoral.

godless
Adjective
1. wicked or unprincipled
2. not religious

godless
adjective wicked, depraved, profane, unprincipled, atheistic, ungodly, irreligious, impious, unrighteous
Click to expand...
LGF's tongue in cheek aside, it's hard to be tolerant when just using the name, atheist, implies wicked depravity.

And I can celebrate the death of someone like Falwell, David, because while alive, Falwell continued to spread his intolerance generously around.

As for the cystic fibrosis, one could suggest we godless atheists consider donations to research. What good is prayer going to really do for the guy?
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
And I can celebrate the death of someone like Falwell, David, because while alive, Falwell continued to spread his intolerance generously around.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Death to the intolerant!!

:eggunsure: oh, hang on...
 
greymatters said:
Somehow, I'm skeptical of that statement:

(Although the quote is attributed to Stinky, not Charles)
Click to expand...
Yeah. Well, Stinky is just the janitor, after all. ;)

I think I may have seen Charles say that he's an atheist at one point, but I couldn't swear to it. If he is, he's not aggresively so; he's very even-handed about religion either way until your beliefs lead you to push nonsense in the classroom or blow up a bus full of children.

But that line about "even from you godless atheists" is definitely tongue-in-cheek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom