You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Atheism’ tag.
Thunderf00t gets a trophy for patience as he systematically attempts to debate with the foolishly inane Eric Hovind. This video is 29 minutes of fist-clenching agony as Hovind petulantly refuses to answer questions and fails to understand the most rudimentary principles of arguing. People who debate Theists are aware of the nuclear grade delusion necessary to maintain belief in magic, and now after watching this video, you are too.
Greta Christina is a prominent member of the new Atheist movement. She has recently published a work called “Why are you Atheists so Angry? – 99 Things that piss off the Godless.” I’m happy to feature some of her work here on the Sunday Disservice.
1: The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.
When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.
All these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.
Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural one? The number of times humankind has said, “We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it’s caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul”?
Exactly zero.
Sure, people come up with new supernatural “explanations” for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources? Again — exactly zero.
Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don’t have a thorough explanation — human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the Universe — will be best explained by the supernatural?
Given this pattern, it’s clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn’t understand the world as well as we do now… but that, on more careful examination, has never once been shown to be correct.
If I see any solid evidence to support God, or any supernatural explanation of any phenomenon, I’ll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I’ll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.
The title of the video is actually called “Thunderf00t Unmasked” as it deals with some of the nasty things zealots have and continue to do. It is a little slice of youtube drama, but at the same time the argument Thunderf00t makes against religion is remarkably cogent and clear and deserves to be amplified :) Thus it ends up here…
Why do atheists hate so much? Is it some sort of unnatural compulsion to blasphemy and make the religious feel uncomfortable? Well, not really. The message from this part of the atheist community is clear: believing in the supernatural is not rational and basing decisions that affect people and institutions on mythology is credulous behaviour at best. This cartoon has been making the rounds in various atheist hotspots( I found it on Good Reason) on the net, and I reproduce it here for you today for the Sunday Disservice. The cartoon is a concise summary of why many atheists sound and act the way they do.
All too frequently when the horrible/insane/incoherant practices/beliefes/consequences of religious dogma are pointed out, one hears responses that try to dodge the point rather than address it directly. One of the most common of these dodges takes this approximate shape: “Why do you even bother? It’s not like religious people ever do anything harmful in this day and age. And if they do, those harmful actions are never based on their religious beliefs. You’re obviously just full of hate for people not like you, so I now get to disregard your point.” Typically, believers will also throw in a reference to some other part of their religion’s teachings which sounds nice and lovey dovey. Can’t have a problem with lovey dovey, can you?
First, I want to stress that this IS a dodge. It doesn’t matter if I happen to be the most hateful person on the planet or if the idea I’m attacking isn’t currently held by anyone alive today. Nor does it matter that Belief Y is a good one, if we are discussing Belief X. In rational discussions, one must challenge the actual points presented. It is meaningless to quibble over the context around them or to focus on something else. Plunging your head into the sand is not a valid reasoning technique.
Alternatively, one could concede the point and admit that said dogma/practice/belief is indeed horrible/insane/incoherent. Then you could start a second discussion to try to argue that the dogma’s despicable nature doesn’t influence the world in any meaningful way. While this would be acceptable, it’s rare that a theist is will allow that any of their core religious ideas are either loathsome or inconsequential, much less both.
Much more likely, the theist will refuse to return to the main topic until this non-sequitor is dealt with. In either event, I would like to share ProportionalResponse’s reaction. The suggestion that religion today is harmless would be laughable, if it wasn’t so spirit-crushingly sad. Here is a link to the full image, should you wish to study it more carefully.
This dodge neither reflects reality nor addresses the topic actually under discussion. It’s a cheap diversionary tactic of the desperate and/or lazy. Users of this dodge may leave, give their heads a shake, and come back when they’re ready to say something meaningful.
Theramin Trees a youtube author made a series of videos in response to the following questions.
This three-part series looks at:
1. What I believed when I was a theist
2. Concepts for gods I affirmatively believe do not exist
3. Concepts for god I believe to be unknowable
The first video, a trek into the author’s beliefs is fascinating as it is a tour of how his conception of the christian god evolved over time and where TT came to the conclusion that there was no God and that was the most reasonable hypothesis to hold given the current information.
Stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow. :)
I’ve always found WLC’s arguments to be a bit frothy, and unnecessarily wordy, perhaps even straying into the realm of prolix. The Disservice today focuses on the reasons why prominent atheists and other intellectuals are wary of, or outright refuse to ‘debate’ WLC and his ilk.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…