As if…
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Fishie, fishie, fishie. I can’t believe you’re really as dimwitted and slow as you pretend to be. You state:
>>he habitually repeats the blatant falsehood that
>>lack of belief is a religion.
If you can cite an example of me EVER saying this, please provide it. In the alternative, STFU.
I have habitually repeated the self-evident truth that Atheists do not have a “lack of belief”, they have a very strong, deeply-held belief; a belief, it would appear, the cling to with greater ferocity than most “Xians” or “Xlims” or “Xddhists” or “Xews”, namely that THERE IS NO GOD. And that a deeply-held belief concerning God is a religion.
Time for me to go have some sushi, Pescadito pecador. You, on the other hand, are cooked!
Over and out.
Thought provoking cartoon. But the issue being missed here is that public schools should teach what the entire public believe….everyone that funds it, not just one single narrow minded and unprovable theory, of which sits both creationism and evolution. Both have flaws and problems….so what do we know? We are here and we can pretend we know what happened ‘because we are so smart’. Both science and religion are based on what we are ‘willing’ to see. What we see influences our believes (some would say non belief….which is their belief). But what we need to decide is, if we teach both sides in schools is it going to damage our kids (who are obviously too dumb to figure things out for themselves). Each side wants to just shut the other side….and that is pride….and every one knows what they say about pride.
Exactly as predicted – sidestepping the issue again. Too chickenshit to answer.
As I have told you before, lad – and, as you have astutely, continually and conspicuously avoided addressing – believing blindly, with NO EVIDENCE for your belief is the OPPOSITE of THEORIZING, BASED ON EVIDENCE.
Accepting that “God” is effectively certain to be nothing more than another one of the thousand of impossible, ludicrous myths humans have dreamt up is a VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORY EVERY BIT AS UNCHALLENGED AS THE “THEORIES” OF EVOLUTION OR GRAVITATION.
Your incessant proclamation IGNORES the fact that ALL KNOWN FACTS SUPPORT ATHEISM. ALL KNOWN FACTS CONTRADICT THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS. THEREFORE, RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS BLIND FAITH IN UNPROVEN, UNPROVABLE THINGS. ATHEISM IS NOT BLIND, SO IT IS NOT “FAITH” OR RELIGION.
Thanks for living up to my predictions. I have once again exposed you as unable to address the core issue.
ANSWER THE QUESTION. HOW IS ACCEPTANCE OF A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT IS 100% UNCONTRADICTED THE SAME AS BLIND BELIEF IN IRRATIONAL, IMPOSSIBLE THINGS?
Fuck the sophistry and cheap high-school debate tactics. ANSWER THE QUESTION, NOT YOUR OWN STRAW MAN.
Goti, Fiti, so much anger. So many caps. You need to get some looser panties, motherghucker! Yours appear to be in a permanent twist.
>>ANSWER THE QUESTION. HOW IS ACCEPTANCE OF A
>>SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT IS 100% UNCONTRADICTED
Could you please present the “SCIENTIFIC THEORY” that you refer to? You seem to have gone from someone who “denies that there is sufficient scientific evidence” for something to an aspiring Nobel laureate with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. And one that is 100% UNCONTRADICTED, to boot! That sounds weighty, mon ami.
What exactly is the SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
#58, 62, 65 – Mouseturd,
I guess for you, when you say “over and out”, what you really mean is “I’ll never STFU.”
You really are making an ass of yourself however. You don’t seem to get that you don’t get to put belief into other people’s heads only to then tell them that the belief you put there is wrong.
Atheism is for me, exactly as I described it, an assertion that in order to give credence to a hypothesis, it must have evidence. Any hypothesis that has existed for N,000 years and has still failed to produce any evidence is false. Therefore, the statement that “I believe there is no god.” is not as you state, an assertion. Rather it is a statement that until anyone produces a shred of evidence to give doubt about the subject, the statement is still false, just like the dragon in my closet.
You are beginning to seem like a very old standalone computer running a highly simplistic program, kind of like a loop around “hello world”, except that your silly message is “atheism is a religion”. I’ve tried to reprogram the computer to make it do something more interesting. However, it appears that you have no input device at all.
When confronted with new arguments, you fall back to your loop stating and restating and rerestating that atheism is a religion.
What I find really amusing is that you then accuse others of not being open minded. Several threads back, if you’ll recall, I was highly open minded. I asked you for your definitions of atheism and religion. You provided them. The definitions you supplied did not make atheism a religion. So, based on what are you actually making your claim. Please provide something new to go on. Your old arguments are dead.
And again, please stop shoving beliefs into my head only to contradict them. Use words as they are intended. If you accept McVeigh’s own statement of agnosticism, why would you not accept any atheists statement about their beliefs? Why must you ram your beliefs about atheism into a non-existent human being only to shoot that human down. You make no sense at all. Get off your soap box and at least listen to the counter arguments people are making to your own statements. And buy an input device so that maybe something new can get into your brain. Thinking about new ideas is fun. Give it a try.
Oh, and as for what is theory, from American Heritage dictionary on dictionary.com, this seems the most applicable to science:
the·o·ry (thē’ə-rē, thîr’ē) n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
By the way, this is one reason I think that String Theory should still be called String Hypothesis. I think that unlike Relativity, Quantum Theory, Evolution, Natural Selection, and others, String Hypothesis is neither proven nor ready to make predictions.
Unlike religion, however, it does have a couple of shreds of evidence. It predicted the glueball. Gravity fell out of it quite naturally. In short, it’s a highly interesting hypothesis. However, if it goes on for another 30 years and still has no additional data, it may be time to throw it away. It is already time to ensure that we are not spending all of our research dollars and brains on this one hope of a GUT/TOE. We should already be shifting some of the vast resources to other hypotheses to see how they pan out.
Now, if the god hypothesis made a prediction or two that came true or even was a self-consistent explanation of anything, perhaps I might become agnostic. As stated before, this is a key difference between atheism and religion. Atheists will change opinions in light of new evidence. Theists will not.
>>Atheism is for me, exactly as I described it
OK, Scottie. I accept that you have made up a definition for Atheism, and that’s how you define yourself. That’s fine. Just don’t berate me for making the common-sense, worldwide distinction between the statements “I don’t believe there’s a god” and “I believe that God does not exist”. OK?
>>Use words as they are intended.
I’m trying, Scottie … God love me, I’m trying. You an your bretheren, on the other hand, are trying to conflate and confuse the lack of a belief with a STRONG HEARTFELT BELIEF. I don’t think you’re that muddle-headed, so I can only assume you’re jerking our chains.
I can see I’ve really knocked over a beehive here, pointing out that Atheism is a religion. I’m somewhat amused by the squealing and protesting by all the naughty, dangerous, free-thinking, anti-establishment, unconventional, bohemian groovy dudes who are appalled at the observation that they are worshiping at a similar altar as the zoroastrians, muslims, christians, and jews. Haw!
Somebody’s making an ass of themselves here, Scottie. Denial is never a pretty thing to witness. Do yourself a favor.
[Message delete due to violation of posting rules]
#68 – MM,
I believe that god does not exist.
That is my belief. The rest was explanation for my reasons to show that the above statement does not constitute either religion or an assertion.
I believe there is no teapot orbiting the sun at 1 au 180 degrees behind earth.
Is that a religion?
Religions, Scotti, are beliefs with respect to (not IN, just with respect to) a supreme being. So your belief that God does not exist is a religion, and you, a practitioner of that religion. The teapot belief does not relate to God.
I’m glad we straightened that out.
#71 – MM,
Actually, that sounds wildly inconsistent to me and does not match the definition you posted. It ignores a large section of the definition. Do you have some other definition from some other dictionary?
See, one strong point that I strongly believe you are missing is that you don’t get to define religion for everyone. If you have a dictionary that does not specify all of the other attributes, please post that definition AND its source.
#43 – Oh, so now might makes right
No… But the Oxford Unabridged does…
Go to school.
#71 – MM,
To clear up what sounds inconsistent to me, deities are not special to me. Any fantastic claim is identical to any other. I see no reason for a distinction between an orbiting teapot, god, or any other imaginary friend.
#71 – MM,
Also, not all religions have supreme beings. Buddhism, to the best of my limited knowledge does not. Many other religions do not have a supreme being, but have instead a number of major and minor deities.
#63 – If you’re looking to have public schools teach only things believed by 100% of the taxpayers, you might as well close ’em down – there’s nothing that fits that bill.
>>Also, not all religions have supreme beings. Buddhism, to
>>the best of my limited knowledge does not.
I know, Mr Scott. Neither does another popular religion, ATHEISM. A religion does not require BELIEF IN a supreme being, it just describes BELIEF CONCERNING (including belief in the nonexistence of) a supreme being or beings.
#77 – Keep bangin’ that drum. It’s wrong, but its got a good beat.
>>It’s wrong
Gee, haven’t I heard that somewhere before? Right here?? “I’m right and you are wrong”? “I know and you don’t know”?
Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall, OFTLO.
— Proverbs 16: 18-19
Better brush up on your Tom Petty. The song “Free Falling”, in particular. You may need the information. Oh wait, I forgot. You know everything already!
#77 – MM,
I guess you think that’s sufficient. But, now that I know your personal definition, would you mind taking on the pesky little task of actually finding a dictionary that says that and posting the definition AND the source?
See, your last definition simply doesn’t say that. It says:
“Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals.”
See, that is a definition. I don’t personally agree with the definition. I would also request that when you cite such a thing, you give the source so we can check it for ourselves. But, at least that is a definition. And, as you can see, the portion in bold is a required portion. It is connected with AND not OR. There’s a big difference there.
So, your new definition does not match your old definition, and presumably also does not match any known even moderately respectable dictionary. But, if you can find such a dictionary, at least quote it.
Since you are not the sole keeper of the English language and do not get to unilaterally redefine words, you should stick to generally accepted meanings as found in reputable dictionaries.
BTW, I really would like to know the source of BOTH of your definitions. The first seems likely to have come out of some obscure dictionary no one ever heard of and your new one, as stated in #77 is likely to have been hatched out of your own little brain.
Scottie, Scottie, Scottie.
If it really means THAT much to you, I will crumble and acquiesce that you (and you only) don’t belong to a religion, no matter how God-related your belief system, no matter how strongly held those beliefs are, and no matter how intransigent you are to considering that perhaps you, too, are operating on blind faith just as much as the rest of us.
Then notion of your panties being in such a tight twist is getting painful even to me. Good God damn, compadre! You’re one intolerant mofo, aren’tcha??
OK, so we’ll compromise. Your brand of atheism isn’t a “religion”, it’s just a deeply held belief, in the absence of any evidence, concerning God. One you’re willing to badger and persecute non-believers for in the name of (sorry to end a sentence with a preposition; please don’t lampoon my education because of it).
Are you happy now? Untwist the knickers, dude! You’re going to go blind, or grow hair on your palms, or something.
#81 – Mustard,
I guess I have to accept that. I’m quite surprised by it, and unpleasantly surprised at that. But, I’ll accept it.
Out of curiosity though, why do you find dictionaries so abhorrent? Are they against your religion?
As for being intolerant, note that I am not intolerant of your beliefs. I am intolerant of you berating me for mine.
You, my blog buddy, have demonstrated a completely closed mind to new ideas. You use the blog as your own personal soap box rather than as a place to exchange ideas. You are unwilling to truly consider views that conflict with your own. You are completely unwilling to do even the most basic research of looking in a dictionary. How do you learn anything new?
BTW, I thought your religion teaches “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Is the way you treat atheists really the way you would be treated? If religion ever became the minority viewpoint, would you really want everyone around you to be repeatedly mocking you for being delusional? Do you not see that this is the same as what you have been doing to the atheists on this site?
Finally:
Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which we shall not put!
>>Is the way you treat atheists really the way you would be treated?
Scottie. Scottie. I have never berated you for a single belief of yours, with the exception of your not admitting that Atheism is a religion. I think it’s a perfectly valid religion, just like Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Rastafaria, Wicca, Islam (without the IEDs), Bha’i, tribal religions, Buddhism, and all the rest.
And you can’t deny that I have NEVER suggested you should believe what I believe. Which would contrast with your approach to God-lovers. Whatever you want to believe is fine. If you want to believe I’m a closed-minded fool, that’s fine too. And as a result of my recent acquiescence to ALL your beliefs, I am willing to grant you the right to believe that your deeply-held beliefs regarding God are not a “religion”.
And this is “quite unpleasant” to you? Why? Do you thrive on being an oppressed minorty? Is my willingness to agree that you can believe whatever you choose to believe, AND to call it whatever you want to call it, so incompatible with victimhood that it bothers you?
>>Is the way you treat atheists really the way you would be treated?
And yes, Scottie, it is. If you knew any atheists I know IRL, you would realize that I’m about as tolerant as they come, regarding other people’s religions. Of course, I don’t really know any Atheists who are in deep denial.
And this is “quite unpleasant” to you? Why?
Because:
1. I enjoy a good debate and was hoping that you might actually check a dictionary and come to either understand why you are incorrect or convince me that I am. Instead, you gave up actually trying to be convincing when you refused to do a lick of research.
2. You limited your acquiescence to me rather than, as would be expected if you were convinced, expanding it to include all atheists.
I’m genuinely trying to improve the memepool. One of our memes is incorrect. I would be more satisfied getting rid of the bad meme, even if it is the one I hold dear, than merely receiving your pained acceptance, especially when limited solely to my case.
As for suggesting that I believe what you believe, yes, you have made just such a suggestion. You ask that I believe that atheism is a religion. This is actually quite offensive to many atheists.
It is akin to stating that it is OK for me to believe in Zeus and the rest. But, I must accept that my belief is merely a mythology rather than a true religion.
#84 – Grey Poupon,
Of course, I don’t really know any Atheists who are in deep denial.
Obviously implying that it is I rather than you who are in denial. And you believe this is being open minded, do you? I think it’s condescending, patronizing, and irritating. It is not the way one converses with equals.
#79 – Twist your bullshit anyway you want… I make no claims that I know everything, nor does anyone else. I do make the correct claim based on the definition of the words that you inventing fake definitions for, that you are wrong.
Maybe you should write your own dictionary to compete with the ones that everybody else accepts.
Methinks we should stop feeding the troll…
#85 – You ask that I believe that atheism is a religion. This is actually quite offensive to many atheists.
No it isn’t… C’mon… No it is not. I am not in any way offended that Mustard thinks I practice a religion.
I am, as a writer, offended at his flagrant abuse of the English language, as should be all writers, linguists, and English teachers. And he gets it, knows it, and can’t argue it… which is why he’s just acting like a toddler throwing a tantrum.
I assume his delusional belief that Xians are persecuted is at the core of his tirade, but maybe it is something else.
I can say that I have never, as he asserts, attacked him for his beliefs, nor do I care what he believes, and I’ll tell you why… based on all the myriad of rational and thoughtful posts he’s made on every topic that isn’t this one, I do not believe that he is the sort who uses his faith to try and censor books, or introduce Creationism in schools, or in any way infringe on the liberties of others.
That’s getting to be a rare quality in modern Christians.
#88 – I would, but a blog is too much like a petting zoo to me, and trolls are cuter than goats or bunnies.
>>I am, as a writer, offended at his flagrant abuse of the
>>English language, as should be all writers, linguists,
>You ask that I believe that atheism is a religion. This
>>is actually quite offensive to many atheists.
Awww. Boo frickety hoo. Let me hand you a tissue. Actually, I don’t give a flying fuck WHAT you believe, and you are free to believe what you will. However, when you state in public (in your inimitable and grandiose way) that Atheism isn’t a religion, isn’t a belief system pertaining to God, and is in some way different from what the rest of us evidence-free sheeple believe, I feel compelled to point that out.
Scottie’s off the hook. You are not, Writer.