America? Fuck Yeah!
21 December 2005 by Rockstar Ryan
Now that it’s unconstitutional to teach Intelijunt Desine as an alternative to evolution, it’s made me wonder:
How can we as a country get some things right and others so wrong?
The Dover decision is for every assbag that ever said “If you don’t want GOD in the Pledge of Allegiance/national motto/US currency, then LEAVE to a GODLESS country!”
I can’t wait to tell them to LEAVE and go to a SCIENCELESS country. But these cocksnacks exist and will continue to exist, saying that Judge Jones is oppressing and censoring them. Face it Chet – you lost. You tried to mask Creationism as science by dressing it up with a fancy name. BANG! Shot down by scientists and biology professors who saw through the bullshit. You tried to get your religion into public schools by electing close-minded hillbillies. Score currently stands tied 1-1. You then tried to go through the courts to have Creationism taught to children as a viable explanation for the origin of species. BANG! Shot down. Kansas, you’re next…
Speaking of BANG, I wish I had a bazooka for every dumbass who still thinks that I’m out to destroy Christmas. No, really, check out what this lying piece of shit has to say:
“It’s a sad day in America when you have to retain an attorney to say ‘Merry Christmas,’ ” said Mike Johnson, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney in Louisiana who will push the Christmas cause.”
Whaaa??? If there is someone in the world who is holding you back from saying “Christy Christmas and a very Christy New Christ” to every mouth-breathing motherfucker who walks down the street, please tell them I have a bazooka saved for them too. Problem is, there is no one stopping you from doing so. Not person number one. Scream it from the top of your lungs. Wear the stupid sweaters, making sure to piss your dog off by making them wear one too. Have them match for shit’s sake – I don’t care.
But stop playing victim! I’m sick of these assholes making things up to raise money for the Jerry Falwell retirement fund. Show me evidence!
While we’re on evidence, I have a new pet peeve. It’s all the creduloids that drop by and spout their bullshit but don’t back it up. It’s fine if you disagree with me; even Your Rockstar can’t be right about everything. But when I ask you fuckers for evidence, here are the responses I’ve been getting:
1. “Do the research yourself!”
2. “You’re stupid!”
3. “Pastor Hank on www.ilovejeebus.org says it’s true!”
4. A shitty poem on an even shittier blog
5. The claimant disappears completely to uplink with the mother-ship.
Oh well. At least we’ve held religion out of public schools for the time being.
21 December 2005, on 3:09 pm
“cocksnacks”?
21 December 2005, on 3:27 pm
Why don’t these bible thumpers channel their energy into something useful instead. Maybe if they persuaded all the faithful to pray hard enough, God will reward them by not causing another Christmas tsunami that kills thousands of people on the other side of the planet.
21 December 2005, on 3:34 pm
cocksnacks
Ask Marcus…
21 December 2005, on 8:14 pm
What would Christians have to do if they weren’t playing the persecuted majority?
Ah, the joy I get from hearing someone other than myself refer to fundaMentalist as
‘fuckers’. Makes me feel all Christmasy.
21 December 2005, on 8:34 pm
Wear the stupid sweaters, making sure to piss your dog off by making them wear one too. Have them match for shit’s sake – I don’t care.
LOL
21 December 2005, on 8:56 pm
“fundaMentalist”
Alan, I’ve always hooted at the way the Brits refer to eccentrics and others as Mentals or Mental (adj.) Though I suppose that’s politically incorrect. I guess I mind it when you’re actually referring to someone who has a specific medical condition, but don’t mind using it against people who choose to be stupid, arrogant about their stupidity, and then, as if that weren’t enough, try to force their religion on you. I guess I can really rationalize, eh?
21 December 2005, on 11:17 pm
“people who choose to be stupid, arrogant about their stupidity, and then, as if
that weren’t enough, try to force their religion on you”
Catherine, when did the conversation turn to Dumbya and his cast of thumpers? Anyway,
rationalize all you want. It makes sense to me.
22 December 2005, on 12:58 am
[...] Okay, I am selfish enough that, rather than just commenting on Our Rockstar’s last post, I am going to do my own separate post as a followup. [...]
22 December 2005, on 1:06 am
Judgement Day
More from Judge Jones’ decision: The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions…
22 December 2005, on 1:14 am
Okay, this is really off topic, but I have to tell you guys about this. I’m watching this show on the history channel called “Bible Battles”. It is… I can’t even begin to describe what a good show this is or why, just watch it. It’s been on for over an hour so I’m going to try to figure out when the next airing of the show is but you have to see this. You’ll understand why if you just watch it. The xtians would do good to watch it too. Maybe put shit in perspective for them.
22 December 2005, on 9:15 am
Ford
Please lettuce know!
22 December 2005, on 12:54 pm
“It’s all the creduloids that drop by and spout their bullshit but don’t back it up.”
This just happened to me on my own blog. I had a very friendly Xtian drop by to get a few answers. I did, and then requested some proof of something he posted. No response?
Do you think it’s because they believe in something sans evidence that they expect everyone does?
22 December 2005, on 1:59 pm
Lya:
Faith, so, yes.
As for Bible Battles: It come on next on Saturday at 2:00 pm, and I’m on the east coast, so adjust as needed.
And don’t let my hype get to you too much, I’m just happy because I think it is the first thing I’ve ever seen on tv were they don’t have some bible thumper apologist guy preaching for twenty minutes and some skeptic coming in and trying to refute everything the other guy said in about four seconds. It also takes a lot of things in the bible that seem mystical and majical and shows that it was probably just metaphor for certain battle strategies that they used. It puts a hole new face on a lot of things in the bible and makes it somewhat believable by removing the mystical goddidit crap and reducing god’s size in the bible to the same thing the christers today “know” god as, a mere psychological I-can-feel-it-in-my-heart feeling. In other words, it treats it like any other old tribal book and gives it no special treatment (unlike a lot of other crap on the history channel like the dozens of Bible Code “documentaries” that make me absolutly sick to my stomach).
22 December 2005, on 3:03 pm
Do you think it’s because they believe in something sans evidence that they expect everyone does?
Yes, I think that 100%. Face it Lya: we took the red pill and are no longer in the Matrix.
23 December 2005, on 8:44 am
Is that was that pill was?
23 December 2005, on 9:07 am
Oh, whoops. Ford made that comment. I’m Reeetarded…
23 December 2005, on 11:44 am
Look, no matter what your position is you will never be taken seriously in the real world (outside of a message board) if you cannot put real word into real sentences. every other work is F-that. it is called vulgar language because vulgar was a people group who were the “stupid peasants” of the time and to be ignored. Your language (whether you like it or not) says allot about you. And allot has been said. You are an uneducated people group who will go mainly ignored.
23 December 2005, on 11:54 am
RR, I’d like to challenge your last comment. Have you:
1) Posted links to iluvjeebus.com as evidence to your theistic tendencies?
2) Flat out lied about your credentials to make your point (i.e. claimed to be a sceintist/mloecular biologist)?
3) Completely ignored injunctions directed at you asking you to either address a direct question before continued posting in a thread or answered those queries in such a way that you don’t address them at all?
If you can not anwer “Yes” to any of these questions I will have to deny your status as “retarded.”
23 December 2005, on 12:10 pm
Ah, well said from the King of all Retards. No, I made that easily falsifiable statement without evidence. I now retract said statement since my open mind welcomes better evidence, allowing me to change it. However, my mind is not so open my brain falls out…
P.S – how does one gain the distinction “King of all Retards”?
23 December 2005, on 12:13 pm
Hey Josh:
Why don’t you fuck off and go fucking play hide and go fucking fuck yourself you fucking fuck.
Someone that concerned with language and grammar should be able to piece together a sentence better than Marcus’ 6 year old nephew.
And when you post said sophomoric comment three times, it goes into what we internets savvy people like to call “Moderation”. See, bad people called “spammers” do that, not pissed off little theists who don’t know how to spell.
23 December 2005, on 12:23 pm
“You are an uneducated people group who will go mainly ignored.”
And you’re a flat out liar, with nancy boy senisibilities and flaccid ideas. Vulgar language says NOTHING about someone’s intelligence- but it speaks loudly about their frustration.
Grow up, bigot.
23 December 2005, on 12:44 pm
First things first, I was originally Prince Retard but when the former King died, I assumed the throne. Second of all, Josh and I must have been posting at the same time, otherwise, how did I miss this little gem. As pointed out Josh, when someone takes it upon themselves to criticize the language of others and their educational/intellectual prowess, they may want to avoid the following mistakes:
A lot is two words.
Grammatically, their needs to be agreement in cases of tense and quantity.
You may also want to learn something about verb conjugation.
And finally, while it seems obvious that you are still learning the English language, your remarks may be more intelligible if you use common phrasology and avoid usages such as “people group” and this classic of a sentence, “it is called vulgar language because vulgar was a people group who were the “stupid peasants” of the time and to be ignored.”
I assume your trepidations with our opinions is a result of your religious leanings. I particularly like the way in which you let us know that “no matter what (our) position is (we) will never be taken seriously in the real world (outside of a message board) if (we) cannot put real word (sic) into real sentences.” Could you please educate us in a manner in which we could gain some validity?
23 December 2005, on 12:58 pm
Agreed. Since none of the non-atheist crowd can grasp our position, please lettuce know how we can break on through to the other side.
Oh, I almost forgot – God isn’t real and Jesus was a homosexual axe-wielding serial killer.
King Retard: You missed his comment because God and Baby Jesus told him to try and post his comment 3 times. It was put into moderation and not posted till I approved it. What a dumbfuck…
23 December 2005, on 10:10 pm
I think Josh should start a writing group with readandponder. It could be a great interfaith meeting of the minds.
25 December 2005, on 8:49 pm
Someone once said that atheists take religion more seriously than the God fearing….sad thing is, judging from this forum, it is true. Now that I posted, I will sit back and read the hate posts sure to follow:)
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. — Heywood Broun
You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. –Napoleon Bonaparte
26 December 2005, on 5:37 pm
Ah… The old “Haha I’m just pretending to enjoy the stupidity so you’ll be insulted” poster, haven’t seen one of those in a while. I suppose you think you have just single handedly handled all us retarded atheists (oh you didn’t say it but you implied it). Yeah, ignore every point ever made on this site and boil it down to just some guys that like to make fun of god (or rather, the idea of). It has nothing to do with assholes in kansas beating the shit out of atheists and world leaders trying to impose their religious bullshit on everyone, oh no!! Definitely not!! Now I’m waiting for the “oh come on!! You’re exaggerating you whiny pussy!! You don’t have it that bad!!” post. You motherfuckers go crazy and go on about the “war on christmas” because some people are making the decision to say happy holidays rather than merry christmas, not forcing other people to, just making a personal decision to do so. Maybe you aren’t one of those guys dan, maybe you don’t care if people are atheists and if they say happy holidays, in which case you aren’t really our target. Though we still think belief in god is silly, we’re more concerned with people that try to impose their bullshit on us.
Next time you post dan, have something constructive to say or just shut the fuck up, your childish little teasing tactics aren’t going to get you any awards other than the masturbatory “haha they did what I said they’d do” bullshit. “Now that I posted, I will sit back and read the hate posts sure to follow:)” You feel pretty good about yourself now that you got the quite obvious response you predicted to your bullshit post. You don’t use any logical arguments, you just make a flashy show post so you and other retards like you can feel like you just kicked our ass in an argument. Have fun dan. I’m sure the only sort of post this will rouse from you is a repeat of your bullshit post above with a slightly different wording so you can further emphasize your “All the cool people are laughing at you” tactic that most people grow out of by freshman year of highschool. We emphasize something called LOGIC here dan, not social tactics.
27 December 2005, on 8:54 am
“You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. –Napoleon Bonaparte”
Boneparte also said: “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.”
Why is it that theists come here just to post something they hope is offensive and irritating, and then pretend to be better than atheists because they get insulted as they predicted. When you act like an asshole – like for example going to a forum just to insult the posters – you will be treated as such. This is not a complicated concept, even for theists.
27 December 2005, on 9:38 am
I take religions very seriously. It frightens me that there are people alive in the year 2005 who think that there is an invisible magic man living in the sky. And if you don’t believe in him you will burn for eternity.
27 December 2005, on 11:09 am
Logic? OK I am all for Logic. Is there Dark matter out there?…can you bring me a cup of it? Oh, you can measure the effect of it, but you can’t see it, feel it, taste it, hear it, smell it, or even affect it. Yet Physicists agree that it there…through it’s effects on the universe. Is it also not logical to assume that be it a negative or postive effect, some unseen “fairytale” is affecting you? Isn’t that what your argument is? How this fairy tale affects you personally? So if you fight against that affect, you are naturally giving credence to it. I know, you want to say it is stupid people that affect you. But are they not doing it because of this invisible fairy tale? Is this fairy tale not affecting them? Can you fight the dark matter? Is this Vulcan Logic, Platonic logic, or is it the logic of the 5 senses? Most Physicists do not believe in a personal “God”, but these same physicists do not rule out higher forms of beings that could use the energy of an entire gallaxy to meet their needs. Would not these beings be god like enough to throw an occasional “miracle” our way? No, I am not saying God is an alien. You speak of logic as if you are the master of it, the originator and the owner. And yes I do believe in God, and I also believe, like Napolean, that religion is the dopamine of the masses. So?……….now that I have typed much and naturally, as planned, said nothing concrete, I sit back and await your proof that God is not possible…I don’t care if you believe, but alas, you seem convinced that those of us that have used different logic than yours are stooopid, and about MANY things we are.
Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter. –William Murray
27 December 2005, on 9:52 pm
Uh, dan, I didn’t claim to be the master of logic, I was merely pointing out that you did nothing but insult the shit out of atheists and well, not much else.
“I sit back and await your proof that God is not possible”
Like clockwork… First, I think you mean proof that god doesn’t exist, because, as you know, it’s possible that a monkey is crammed up my ass, but that doesn’t mean that there is one. Second, the burden of proof is on you pal. If we did shit your way we would have an infinite number of things to constantly “disprove” because there are an infinite number of things people can make up. I could say anything, “invisible, incorporeal monkeys are beating the shit out of each other in my living room!!” and it would be my job to prove it. Not your job to disprove it.
“you seem convinced that those of us that have used different logic than yours are stooopid”
There is no such thing as “different” logic. There is only one logic. You can have different information that would suggest a different outcome, solution, or truth, but you can’t have “different” logic. 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 5 unless we do something else to the problem to make it so. There isn’t a “different” way of looking at 2 + 2 to get five.
“Is there Dark matter out there?…can you bring me a cup of it? Oh, you can measure the effect of it, but you can’t see it, feel it, taste it, hear it, smell it, or even affect it.”
What the fuck is your point? Proof doesn’t just consist of the five fucking senses asshole. Proof consists of anything, be it effects of or our senses of, that rules out any possibility other than the one being proposed.
“Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter. –William Murray”
Just to let you know, we aren’t using our quotes to prove that we’re right, we’re just showing those of who we keep company with in our beliefs. Not that I’m suggesting you are trying to use quotes to prove your point, but I’m just informing you that if that’s the angle you are going for, it isn’t going to prove anything. Appeal to authority proves nothing other than the authority’s opinion. Not that I care about Murray’s opinion if the Murray you’re are talking about is the same one that “after his retirement as governor, he became a radical racist and conspiracy theorist. He wrote several books which seemed to indicate his support for fascism.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Murray
27 December 2005, on 10:28 pm
Oh, forgot another point.
“Is it also not logical to assume that be it a negative or postive effect, some unseen “fairytale” is affecting you? Isn’t that what your argument is? How this fairy tale affects you personally? So if you fight against that affect, you are naturally giving credence to it. I know, you want to say it is stupid people that affect you. But are they not doing it because of this invisible fairy tale? Is this fairy tale not affecting them? Can you fight the dark matter?”
Your logic here is so fucking screwed up it’s hard to know where to begin. You seem to be suggesting that we’re fighting against god, which, as atheists, would be stupid to do. But we are not fighting against god, we are fighting against assholes that believe in god and won’t leave us alone. Big fucking difference my fellow bipedal ape. I don’t even know what the fuck you mean by “can you fight the dark matter?” Please explain to me what the fuck you are talking about. Is that your way of saying that we are giving more credence to god than dark matter or some shit? As stated before, we aren’t fighting god, that would be stupid, we are atheists, we’re fighting god bleevers.
“but these same physicists do not rule out higher forms of beings that could use the energy of an entire gallaxy to meet their needs. Would not these beings be god like enough to throw an occasional “miracle” our way? No, I am not saying God is an alien.”
So… you’re making an argument and then saying you don’t agree with it? Okay… Not really sure what your point is with that. What scientists argue is that it MIGHT be POSSIBLE (remember what I said about the difference between possibility and the actual existence of?) that there are aliens out there who can do that sort of thing because it MIGHT be possible and if so is probable that there is other life out there (and they didn’t just pull this “possibility” and “probability” out of there ass, they had discussions about it, and indeed still are discussing, whether or not it’s possible or if there is something that makes it logically impossible for life other than on this planet to exist) that is intelligent (yet again, debatable) and might have been around for much longer than man and might have managed to survive long enough to do this. Could they do “miracle” like things? Depends on your definition of miracle and if it is possible for them to exist. In which case it would be “possible” but we wouldn’t know without proof or evidence of some kind. But that doesn’t apparently matter to you because you apparently don’t believe in that kind of stuff.
28 December 2005, on 1:35 pm
Ford, we agree on one thing….we definitely are bipedal apes, we agree on many things actually. I do know the difference between theory and proven fact, as I see you do. Since you do not understand my argument in favor of theoretical comparison, let me take a different approach. Firstly, I consider evolution as a means that brought our species to the point we are today. In that evolution, we seem to have evolved something no other creature may have. This is called the “god center” of our brain. It does certainly account for most of our species need for a god. My questions to you are these. Why do most people have this development? Of what benifit is it to our species. If it isn’t beneficial, how do you account for the power it weilds? If it is beneficial, why? Psychologically, do atheists deviate from the norm in this regard? Is that pschologically crippling to be outside of the tribe? What benefit is there in being outside the species in this way?
As far as the quotes go, sometimes they illustrate my point, sometimes just poke fun. I am not your enemy, nor do I consider you mine. I do wonder at atheism…being that it is so far outside the species norm. Sometimes I find some people do not have room for spirituality (that is the ability to use the “god center”) and intellectualism, while others just hate christians entirely. I did also hate christians at one time, and still find my fellow christians extremely annoying at times…but that’s a different topic.
ok, here is my point in black and white. It seems that most of our species has and uses a god center, by using, I mean see things in a mystical way. It is my contention we are wired that way, and atheism will never catch on. Agnosticism, definitely, atheism, never. Many atheists have an under devoloped god center, therefore are completely at a loss to understand us.
28 December 2005, on 1:43 pm
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. – J.B. Phillips
28 December 2005, on 2:37 pm
“Many atheists have an under devoloped god center, therefore are completely at a loss to understand us. ”
I’m sure you have proof of this statement, right? A link or something we can see?
No proof (as usual) aside, I agree. Adults who believe in imaginay sky-pixies are completely beyond my understanding. And thank goodness – I’d hate to get sucked into their goofy delusions.
“God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. – J.B. Phillips ”
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – Carl Sagan.
If god cannot be demonstrated or discovered through tangible means, what’s the point of worshipping it?
Let me see if I can explain this clearly.
If I tell you I can fly (without the aid of an airplane)- do you automatically believe me, or do you expect to see proof? Now, assuming you’d want proof would anything short of seeing me fly be sufficient proof? If I simply said, “Oh my flying is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means” would you think I was sane?
Why then do otherwise sensible sane adults suddenly throw all logic and practicality out the window with the mention of the word “god”?
28 December 2005, on 2:40 pm
“Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter. –William Murray ”
I like this. It illustrates nicely that god-belief is based on fear, and coersion. Thanks!
28 December 2005, on 3:04 pm
dan, just because something is culturally conditioned it does not mean that there is a necessity to it. In other words, we have all sorts of cultural baggage that is nothing more than the result of generations and generations of preconditioning. People in England speak English not because of some inherent facet of their nature that makes English “right” for them but because that was the condition they were born into. Similarly, just because a majority of the worlds population believes in some kind of god-being, that doesn’t mean there is an inherent need to believe in a god but only that people are shaped by their cultures. Furthermore, while the majority is often the group in power, nothing says that a majority has to be right. It was a commonly held precept for a long time and in many cultures that slavery was merely a part of society and would always be. We’ve moved beyond that one.
28 December 2005, on 10:58 pm
Dan,
your argument here is confused at a number of points, primarily in grouping unrelated ideas and/or lumping all alternatives to a position under the same ‘other’ heading. Since you’re discussing an area that particularly intrigues me (and since I’m a pedantic bastard), I hope you won’t mind me identifying these points.
Firstly, your mention of a ‘god center’ is a little unclear in meaning. There is no evidence that I’m aware of pointing to a sub-organ or region of the brain responsible for belief in god(s). If you’re not using the term in a purely figurative sense (equivalent to saying “we seem to have evolved something no other creature may have, a ‘god-concept’ in our psyches”), then I assume you are referring to research into epilepsy demonstrating that stimulation of certain areas of the brain can induce mental states which resemble ‘religious experience’. (A quick googling turns up an amusing story about the effects of such stimulation on Richard Dawkins, and a blog entry by an atheist describing dreams of a similar tenor.)
This statement is flawed in a couple of ways. Firstly, as I said, this does not point to an area of the brain responsible for belief in god. Rather it indicates that there may be a neurological explanation for the subjective experiences that many people characterise as mystical or supernatural. This is based on the descriptions by test subjects of their own subjective experiences while under this stimulation. It is therefore quite impossible to say that this effect is a development of our species alone; I don’t know of any studies done comparing us to other species in this area, and if they were to be done I can’t imagine how the researchers would ascertain whether the subject felt he/she/it felt as though “in the presence of god”. (If you know of a way to ask, eg, a chimp such questions, please let me know; for myself, I’ve no points in Animal Empathy.) For all we know, all other animals’ subjective existence consists of a permanent state of rapture.
(As an illustrative example of what I mean, consider the theory of bicameralism, as filtered through my understanding of a couple of commentaries on it and not on having ever read Jaynes’ own work (end disclaimer). The idea I’m referring to is that originally humans were unconscious dreamers who did the bidding of the gods, whose voices they heard speaking to them within their minds, guiding them in all things; this caused by the brain’s divisions into a subjective part that experiences the world, and which heard the thoughts that percolated up in other parts of the brain as commands in the person’s own voice, interpreted as gods speaking to them supernaturally. The idea is that at one time, the experience you have when you conduct an inner monologue or when an idea pops up from your subconscious fully formed would have been interpreted as a communication from an outside agency, and that true consciousness as we now think of it arose when this separation broke down and people became aware of their own impulses as parts of their selves.)
Secondly, and this is becoming vastly longer than I’d expected, you say “It does certainly account for most of our species need for a god.” I don’t see that it does so at all. The fact that people can have subjective experiences which involve awe, a feeling of smallness and insignificance, and a sensation of being in the presence of some Other, do not “account for most of our species need for a god”. When I’m drunk I occasionally have the feeling that I am falling straight backwards, or that the room is speeding away in front of me. If I then took this subjective experience and built on it a belief that I actually was falling backwards while staying where I was, the brain-misfire or inner ear upset that causes my sensation wouldn’t “account for my need” to believe this. It would at most show what real thing lay behind the basis of my belief. Buddhists are able to experience feelings of transcendence and oneness with the universe, etc, while not believing in a god; clearly for some people, at least, even an acceptance of these subjective experiences as having some ‘reality’ doesn’t necessitate connecting those experiences with a god.
You then go on to ask where we (atheists in general, I take you as meaning, though I think you were addressing Ford specifically) think this ‘god-center’ came from, and whether it is beneficial; if so why, and if not why it persists. Firstly, I would point out that the science of how our subjective experience arises from our neural processes is extremely sketchy yet, so I assume you’ll settle for something less than petabytes’ worth of encephalograms, case histories, paleogenetics, and archeological evidence when I guess where it comes from. I’d say it’s an artifact of our consciousness – that’s an artifact in the computer graphics sense, not the man-made object sense. That is to say, the way our heads are wired that produces our consciousness and subjective awareness happens not to seal itself off perfectly at the boundaries of sensible input. Feed a well-designed computer program nonsensical input and it will likely refuse to run. If it’s less well-designed, or if it sacrifices safety for power and flexibility, it’ll run and do something completely unexpected. To my mind these current-induced experiences are like feeding a program ‘live’ instead of ‘inert’ data. Suddenly your terminal is speaking Chinese and ‘esc’ opens the CD drive. Snow crash.
As to whether and how this is beneficial, I’ve mostly answered that. I don’t think this fact about our mental makeup is necessarily beneficial or harmful. I think it’s a side-effect of things like self-awareness and consciousness, which were beneficial, and were selected for. It may be detrimental, but something that we can’t evolve away naturally without also losing its desirable counterparts. Besides that, any trait need not be beneficial to evolve – it just has to not destroy an organism’s chance of passing on its genome. The case of related traits which hang off of it, such as some forms of mystical thinking, are different.
I should point out that these experiences are not “religious belief”. A person can be religiously faithful their entire lives without such an experience, I’m sure you’d agree. Nor does theology have much if anything to do with these sensations. Their relation to religion is primarily as the “inexplicable feelings” that people cite as a basis for their faith. This is much more limited than the idea you seem to be describing of a part of the brain than causes people to believe in god. It’s certainly possible that other artifacts of the way our brain is wired – the stuff of evolutionary psychology – shape a phantasmal god-figure in our unconscious, and that these mold our impressions of our “mystical experiences” when we come down; but these are a separate, if related, issue.
The main point of the rest of what you say seems to be that atheism is very strange, that seeing the world differently to most people must be odd, that you don’t see how a mindset so different from the “tribe” can be tenable or viable, and that atheists are necessarily lacking some important essence of humanity in not having or not acknowledging this dimension of human experience. To that I would firstly point out that as far as I’m concerned, my way of seeing the world seems entirely reasonable, regardless of how many share it; that the number of people who hold a position does not influence its validity; and that yes, it is odd to be surrounded by people who profess groundless faith in an incomprehensible being and consider it perfectly normal and necessary. I think that’s a large part of why many people come to this blog, because we’re in such an odd position and would very much like if this strange-minded majority would not do anything too crazy or hazardous to our health. Secondly, and primarily, I certainly don’t feel I’m missing anything from my life for not believing in a god. Or to put it more clearly: I readily grant that ’spirituality’ is an important part of human experience. I do not grant that it necessarily entails belief in god or in any supernatural entity. I regard spirituality as simply a heading under which the relation of our subjective selves to the objective world we perceive falls. I think that we do not at present have a good way of talking about spirituality and I don’t regard the theology-cruft of viral religion to be any kind of good example in that regard. I think, or hope, that eventually we will have such a useful way of thinking about our subjective existence and relating it to our objective worldview – of, being flowery about it, identifying our mind and our self and reconciling them to find our being – and I think that once such a synthesis is achieved that religion in its current sense will wither away and atheism will be as natural as aunicornism.
Referring to your summary:
It seems that most of our species has and uses a god center, by using, I mean see things in a mystical way. It is my contention we are wired that way, and atheism will never catch on. Agnosticism, definitely, atheism, never. Many atheists have an under devoloped god center, therefore are completely at a loss to understand us.
I also think that mystical thinking has to do with how we’re wired. I don’t think that atheism is incompatible with that. Your comment on agnosticism implies you think the wave of the future is a wishy-washy non-specific god-belief with no dogma to contradict and no coherent god-idea to disprove but heapings of pseudo-spiritualism and superstition. I disagree. I see the future as likely to consist of either a patchwork of successful but competing mind-virus creeds and theocracies, or an atheistic synthesis of scientific objectivity and rational subjectivity.
Oh, and regarding:
Sometimes I find some people do not have room for spirituality (that is the ability to use the “god center”) and intellectualism, while others just hate christians entirely.
It’s tangential to my main point, but I couldn’t let that slide.
- the “god center” is not a thing that you ‘use’.
- spirituality does not necessarily entail either religion or god.
- spirituality and intellectualism are not the same thing, they are not linked in any way I know of that would require someone who is not ’spiritual’ to also be non-intellectual, and if that wasn’t a typo then it was an extremely dirty and underhanded bit of rhetorical trickery; and
- it is absurd to conflate “hatred of Christianity” with “atheism”. I can’t say I believe you’re making this suggestion in good faith. It looks to me like you’re trying to stir it up and to be honest, it’s rather feeble.
And that’s almost two thousand words, so if you’ll excuse me, I need to get some sleep.
29 December 2005, on 2:11 am
Dan: I doubt I talk more about gawd than a theist does. I was just in the Midwest. Jeebus was every other word out of their mouths. It was the excuse for why they lived, it was the rationale for every stupid litte thing they did or that happened to them. Other than this forum, I don’t talk about Jeebus or gawd or thank them for anything — nor do I attribute the random events of the universe to them ever. And neither do the rational beings I call my friends. Your world, in which the universe is a dream of some all-powerful madman, is too frightening for me to entertain outside of a few minutes each day. My world is far more comforting.
29 December 2005, on 10:16 am
http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html that’s for Lya. Thanks for the well thought out reply morgan, we do not agree here, on many points, and if I get time I will reply, however, I do not plan on writhing a scientific thesis that is not disputable, since anything a theist implies that some have never heard of requires absolute scientific proof with footnotes and links and such. I will not do that, I don’t have THAT much time. I do want to say I am ot trying to stir anything by saying some athiests hate Christians, it’s merely a fact. I was once a strong christian hater, though never truly an athiest. And many Athiests have little hatred in them for anyone, let alone a whole religious order.But there is a minority that arrive at athiesm due to hatred, not reason. No, I have no case studies, nor will I research them:)
29 December 2005, on 2:46 pm
God center = delusion center?
29 December 2005, on 5:18 pm
since anything a theist implies that some have never heard of requires absolute scientific proof with footnotes and links and such…[cut]
How awful – asking for proof of a claim!
]…No, I have no case studies, nor will I research them:)
Then I will not respect any of your wild claims. Especially “god center”. That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.
29 December 2005, on 7:23 pm
Well, actually his link does lead to a site talking about a module in the brain that could be the cause of religious experiences (not just god, pretty much anything supernatural). This research guy stimulated that area of the brain in some people and they had all kinds of crap going on. But the stuff he linked to really suggests more of a naturally evolved “god center” that is just used for group control (So we can all work together and kill all of those nonbeliever motherfuckers!!!). Kinda reduces god in my opinion.
29 December 2005, on 9:48 pm
Yeah, I know. The same one that can be stimulated to make people see ghosts and goblins. So, what, god’s all in your mind??
29 December 2005, on 11:24 pm
“So, what, god’s all in your mind??”
Yes.
30 December 2005, on 3:23 pm
Ah, agreed. LOL! May I add:
Bigfoot
Aliens
The Loch Ness Monster
Psi powers
Homeopathy
Acupuncture
Chiropractic
Mary with the Cherry on a tortilla
Fuck it, you all get the idea…
30 December 2005, on 6:09 pm
“Psi powers”
Well, yes.
Obviously.
Geez.
31 December 2005, on 12:41 pm
I don’t think that the god module either proves or disproves any of the things you listed above. However, once further research into this module has been done, we shall know wether or not mankind is biologically predisposed to believe in things larger than himself. OK, in some folks opinion, “smaller” than himself. A pure athiest would naturally say that this module proves that the gods are inside us, made up, and religion shamelessly abuses that module to control people. This I find a bit ironic, since it would imply theists already knew of what science is just discovering. A pure theist would say that this module was designed by god so that we would always be able to “experience” god. The studies are just beginning, and the jury will be out for some time before this module is proven to be what it is claimed to be, but my suspicion is that it is probably true.
I made a bad analogy to dark matter, something being there all around us yet completely unexperienced by us. My point in all this is that the dark matter matter is all the experiences that one under the effectation of a god mod that someone not under the power of it could understand. It is pointless to fight them because it would seem to me it is similar to trying to convince someone with acrophobia to walk a tightrope over Niagara. The difference is, if we are biologically disposed to be easily effected by a god mod, then there will always be a majority of mankind believing in “fairy tales”. I know no one would seriously consider cutting up our brains to remove it, that would be like handing everyone a labotomy to keep the masses calm, and is every bit the mind control religious leaders are accused of doing.
So, if there is a god mod, what do we do about it?
Do we just continue fighting it in the hope it is evolved away? Do we continue to make fun of the masses of “idiots”? Do we get on with our lives and let people that have not personally done us any harm to continue in thier myths? Do we give surgical solutions to the “criminally religious”?
morgan, I do have a differing opinion on what spirituality means, I do respect what you call spirituality. Please understand, without diminishing what you believe, my personal view of spirituality is that wich deals with the spirit. My definition of spirit is an essence that is outside of the physical realm, also known as the “fairy realm” by many athiests. I do agree that spirituality does not nescessarily need to involve a god. I being Christian, you know generally my belief, so I will not expound on it. There is credence to what you call spirituallity, I just would not use the term personally. I respect your use of it, and will try to keep it in mind that not everyone uses terminology in the same manner I do.
I agree that one doesn’t “use” a god mod. I was referring to one being influuenced by this mod. I do expect that an athiest, already convinced there is no higher power, would allow this mod to wield any emotional power over them, especially under controlled lab conditions where they are expecting it.
I did not mean to imply that that the majority of atheists hate christians or any other group. I do know that SOME athiests became athiests originally because of the church systems, and thier dislike of that system. I was never an athiest, but the church system, and fundemental christians very nearly made me one, but I remained essentially a believer, despite my disallusionment. But I do know of people that made a first leap towards athiesm because they couldn’t believe a god would allow things as is (ie: persecution of homosexuals, eternal hell, political dealings, believe or else!, etc etc, many already know the list)
Bicameralism is a theory, possible but never proven, and it is pretty much widely considered unlikely. It is definitely a good alternate myth if it is not true. If it is true then I stand corrected.
Also, I do see the need for this blog, as it does unite people with a common bond. I would never wish to see the end to such things. I am grateful that we all have a support group to back us. I am also glad it gives me a place to spew my opinions, and that the moderator is willing to allow both sides of the issues to be presented
I have not tried to convince anyone that there is a god, that is not my purpose here.
Rockstar, I am sorry you misunderstood my statement about links and such. If I make a claim that you want and are willing to read further on, point them out to me and I will refer you them to you. I get most of my information in places other than the internet, as I find a great deal of information on the web to be generally poor and of lesser value than at the local universities. I do google as a starting point, but then I try and find the scources for that wich is claimed as true and “gospel” on the net in libraries and bookstores. I happen to have many many interests other than religion:)
andrew, it could be interpreted as a delusion center if that is how you interpret the raw data. It does not prove anything, except that folk may be predisposed to think of things outside of logical reasoning as possible, and dare I say, to some as probable.
OK, have to go, later
31 December 2005, on 2:51 pm
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein
31 December 2005, on 8:40 pm
“I do expect that an athiest, already convinced there is no higher power, would allow this mod to wield any emotional power over them”
oops….typo…should read “do NOT expect”
1 January 2006, on 2:45 pm
Dan,
a couple of little things before I get into the main body of your post.
“A pure athiest…”
What is that? I’ve seen distinctions drawn between ‘weak’ and ’strong’ atheism, or ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ atheism, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of ‘pure’ atheism (assuming you do mean it’s the person’s atheism that is pure, not the person herself… I suppose if you got me a dietician and sent me to a health spa for a month, you’d end up with a purer atheist…) It’s not clear to me what you might mean by it, either.
“My point in all this is that the dark matter matter is all the experiences that one under the effectation of a god mod that someone not under the power of it could understand. It is pointless to fight them because it would seem to me it is similar to trying to convince someone with acrophobia to walk a tightrope over Niagara.”
This is a little unclear. Let me try to reword it, and let me know if I miss your meaning.
“A person who believes that dark matter exists is like a person who believes that god exists because of subjective experiences traceable to a ‘god center’. For the person who believes in god, his reasons for belief cannot be communicated to someone who has not had such a subjective experience. Similarly, the reasons a person may have for believing that dark matter exists cannot be communicated to another and are held for entirely subjective reasons. You can’t convince a person who believes in dark matter that it doesn’t exist any more than you can convince a theist that god doesn’t exit any more than you can convince someone with a phobia do to something opposed to it. De gusta non te disputandum.”
I think you picked a pretty bad example here, since I know of noone who believes that dark matter exists based solely on subjective experience, or who couldn’t be convinced that dark matter in fact didn’t exist if provided with a viable alternative backed by superior evidence. I would rather not go any further in discussing your view as I’m not really sure just what it is, so would you let me know whether my summary above is reasonable, and
a) what you understand the term ‘dark matter’ to mean, and
b) what about the opinion that dark matter exists do you see as similar to the belief in god based on ‘god center’ events?
That should help us actually communicate on this point rather than just talk at each other.
[On the subject of "atheists hating Christians"]
I didn’t think you were at any point suggesting that the majority of atheists hate Christians. However, the rest of your explanation here – people who come to atheism through dissatisfaction or disagreement with their original religion – are not examples of a minority who do hate Christians, either. Hatred is an entirely inappropriate way to characterise disagreement with a belief. I would advise not using it when talking to atheists unless you’re sure it’s exactly what you mean, because the ‘atheists really just hate god’ canard and its cousins are so common and so bloody annoying that if you seem to be arguing it you’re likely to be tuned out.
I’ll be back in a bit with a response to the meaty stuff about spirituality.
2 January 2006, on 10:17 pm
Once again, I agree, my use of the dark matter analogy is a bad one. I don’t believe you have figured out what I meant by my anology. I didn’t want it to appear that believing in dark matter was comparable in anyway to belief in the supernatural. I was simply trying to use it as something not well understood. My actual point (however badly I attemt to make it) is that one that is not under the influence of this theoretical god module may never understand someone, some group or some religion that is allowing themselves (if in fact one can choose being under it’s influence at all) to be subjugated to it. My reference to fighting it is simply the attempt to logically explain any position such as athiesm to the mass of humanity that holds strongly to a seemingly illogical faith in the unseen. At the risk of further confusion, I will say that this mass of illogical humanity, myself included, is what I was trying to symbolize with the dark matter…..something you know is there…but many may not comprehend.
Bad analogy….yes. I definitely do know dark matter is the invisble matter that makes up over 90 percent of the universe, and it’s prescence is theorized due to it’s effects on gravity. It is not subjectively experienced and has little to do with a god mod, but an inferred mass we can not detect except by mathematical calculation.
I do hope that clarifies, and does not further confound:)