Pajiba

I’ve always found it fascinating that anyone could be duped into what was clearly entirely made up by L. Ron Hubbard

I'm guessing that Hubbard looked at the Mormons and realized that batshit crazy could be sold as a religion.
He simply did Joseph Smith Jr. one better.

Beck is a Scientologist.

Yes.

Harlan Ellison must be laughing his ass off.

That whole first paragraph could have been summed up by simply posting the following link:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e12-trapped-in-the-closet

It may even make the movie unnecessary, because I'm not too sure I want to know more about Scientology then what Southpark taught me.

I hope he exposes it as well as he exposed racism.

All religions are equally batshit crazy. It doesn't matter whether you're brain-washed into believing in Jesus or Xenu. It's all the same retarded bullshit. I seriously don't get how anyone in this day and age can be fooled so easily?

SCIENTOLOGY
Auditing
Book written by human
Everything will be fine if you do what the book says
Tomato

CHRISTIANITY
tithing
Book written by humanS
All will be forgiven if you do what the book says
Tomahto

Seriously, this is what almost all organized religion looks like to an atheist like me.

Funny article though, Cindy.

Sorry Ian, don't see the equality between auditing and tithing. Most Christians don't tithe anyway. I do donate to my church as a charity organization because that's how it spends my money. Anyway, I get what you're saying but I have to disagree.

I understand that not all churches are the same, but I know that for many that do tithing, it's an expected contribution, given without question in addition to the collection plate.
And yes, my comparison was not perfectly matched, but I got the point across.

when i was a teenage street punk, during winter i regularly volunteered for the scientology orientation, film, trial auditing thing, because it got me out of the cold for 45 minutes. (they had a "church" on the main drag downtown).

never found anything particularly hypnotic or compelling about it. maybe i am below average intelligence.

they're evaluations of me were consistent though, apparently i was a real mess in a bunch of categories, but they could fix me up if i became a scientologist.

damn, if only i would have listened, here it is more than 20yrs later and i still have a messy life. i never seem to take advice.

things get a life of their own through momentum, but seriously, HOW IN FUCK DID HUBBARD GET THIS BALL ROLLING?

Scientologists (insert holy sound effect here)

I believe the word you're looking for is
BRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMM!

Seriously, Scientology is fucked up. My great-aunt, a sweet little old lady with no money whatsoever, has been sucked in to that shit since the 70s, courtesy of a crazy ex-husband. I remember she used to try and get me and my mother to do some of that stuff. E-meter! (Um, yeah, there's a dial. And it jumps. Probably in response to the heat from your hand or something. It's really not about the thetans within.)

I don't think there is anything particularly foolish about faith. I'll grant you that the details of any religion when viewed out of context can look a little wacky. Hell, viewed in context they can look pretty strange -- how is the "crazy" belief that our souls are the remnants of murdered aliens any worse than the belief that the bread and wine I eat and drink each Sunday literally and physically transmogrify into the body and blood of a man who lived 2000 years ago? They're both founded on a little bit of crazy.

But here is the thing; to believe in nothing is also a little bit crazy. Let me explain:

Faith is a belief that is endures despite a complete lack of supporting evidence. It isn't scientific. In order for something to fall under the scrutiny of the scientific method, it has to be able to be disproven. Not proven. Disproven. There is no way to disprove God, so God exists outside the realm of science (for those of you who would contend that Evolution is direct proof that there is not God, I would remind you that proving the origin story in bible wrong does not disproove the entire religion -- the actual idea of God is beyond the scrutiny of all science). This is the same argument used by many when trying to eliminate intelligent design from science classrooms. It does not belong.

However, this is a double edged razor. Because God doesn't fall under any scientific scrutiny, a person is incapable of using science to disproove God. It's impossible to site evidence that discredits the idea of God, or to site real-world examples of why God can't be real. Because of this, each person must choose what their beliefs are, because nothing in this world offers proof or lack of proof. If the religious person's belief can be summed up as, "I believe there is a God," then the Athiest belief must be summed up as "I belive there is not a God." It isn't "I don't believe in God." Because God isn't scientific, because there is no proof one way or the other, no matter what your feelings are on the subject, the sentence must begin "I believe..." Athiesm is just as much of a religion as Christianity. There is no such thing as "disbelief" when it comes to religion of any kind. It always starts with belief of one kind or another (for the record, I think the healthiest spiritual position is cultivating scepticism while at the same time exploring your own individual values).

So listen, Scientoligists are clearly fucking crazy. Are they more crazy than anyone else? Probably not. They're just more gullible. They've allowed themselves to become duped by a cult, and bullied into handing over the money for the reward of nothing. It's the same thing the Mormons have done for years, the same thing the Catholic church did for centuries, and the same thing we can expect to see from any other organized religion in the future.

Beck really doesn't give a shit.

...It isn't scientific

Posted by: superasente at January 7, 2011 7:30 PM

What else is there to say?

Ah religion, always brings out the best in a crowd.

@L.O.V.E.: All that you wrote is fine, and if that was all that belief in a religion entailed, I would have no qualms about religion. The problem is, however, that religious belief engenders in many of its faithful a sense of righteousness, and self-righteousness, that leads to agressive proselytizing and fanatical intolerance for the views of non-believers, or the faithful of other sects and religions. This all to often leads to religious conflict, repression, and savage violence and hatred. Look at the Middle East for example. Whether it is Egyptian Muslim fanatics car bombing a Coptic Christian church, or a Muslim fanatic killing a Pakistani governor for vocally opposing anti-blasphemy laws, not to mention internecine strife among different factions of Islam in Iraq and the apparently insoluble problem of Israel, almost all of the strife in that region has religious roots. The Inquisition, the Crusades, witch hunts...the list is long and sickening. Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum-such are the crimes to which religion leads.

Oh, and what beliefs might I have?

I don't hate religious people, but I can't fucking stand religion. I think it's utterly arrogant and idiotic to believe that you're somehow important in this gigantic universe.

My long-held theory:

Beck, Jason Lee and Juliette Lewis are double-agents attempting to take Scientology down from the inside.

I need to believe this to sleep at night.

You believe that Scientologists are wrong. You believe that Christians are wrong. You can't proove it; it can't be proven one way or the other, so it must be a belief of some kind.

I think it's utterly arrogant and idiotic to believe that you're somehow important in this gigantic universe.

This right here -- this is a belief.

Mark, unfortunately, that is part of human nature that corrupts. Whether it be democracy, or Christianity, or anything else with power.

Your perspective is an example (though I am not in anyway suggesting you are corrupt or bad). If I took your view, I could say that Islam is dangerous, that its believers are extremist. All a bunch of terrorists. But 99% are wonderful people who have not distorted the teachings of their faith. They are good people. But like anything in life, which group makes the front page?

To anyone who keeps citing religious fanaticism as a critique of the religion as a whole, I say stop reading just the front page. On page 24 there is a story about Muslims using their bodies to protect their Christian brethren. In "God-forsaken" countries, religious charities are present with people risking their lives to help people from other parts of the world.

Yes, Christian's have sinned this world, but they also repent and try to make amends.

Most of the priests I have encountered are wonderful people, but evidently they are all a bunch of pedos.

And Jews are all greedy, right?

Religion is such a big part of people's lives that its easy to blame the person's religion for their faults.

Free will is still free will.

You essentially called my lord and savior, my beliefs, my family, my friends, and most of the civilized world deluded idiots believing in "retarded bullshit".

I can't help that most of the world is deluded. 6 billion wrongs doesn't make a right. The biggest reason that religious people get so upset when their faith is attacked, is that every argument they bring up, falls flat to the floor.

Btw, religion was the earliest attempt on a scientific theory. We've moved on since then.

For Godtopus' sake, people. Lighten up.

No, no, this is what we want!
If we let them go on long enough, maybe they'll die of exhaustion and the rest of us can get back to talking of other things; like shoes and ships and sealing wax, or cabbages and kings.

Posted by: superasente at January 7, 2011 8:45 PM

Not at all. If there's some deity it's abolutely possible for he/she/it to prove it.

wow, this is gettin exciting.

remember as a kid, when you were challenged at the playground and you said, "my dad could beat up your dad!"

well, i don't actually remember that sort of thing, but, y'know, cultural pointer. we just beat the living holy hell out of each other, which is what our dads did anyways.

i do always hear that refrain in my head during religious squabbles, whether in the tavern, on a website, or between supposedly erudite PhDs.

So long as it doesn't interfere with me, it's all goo... oh fuck you intertubes for annoying me outside of office hours. The sun is out, the birds are chirping and I'm not dead yet but if I do, I promise I'll try to report back on what I see so we can clear this argument up once and for all. If you don't hear from me, just assume it's all too good to walk away from and find yourselves something else to fight about. I'm a team player.

All religions are equally batshit crazy. It doesn't matter whether you're brain-washed into believing in Jesus or Xenu. It's all the same retarded bullshit. I seriously don't get how anyone in this day and age can be fooled so easily?

Because human beings are still moved by curiosity and need as to their nature and their place in this vast universe and, in light of the absence of an owner's manual, we all try to approximate the answers to the big, tough questions as best we can?

"God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein said that. And he was about the most analytical and intelligent human being of the last 2-3 centuries. But he had his beliefs and his faith -- none of which invalidated his science or his analytical thinking.

As to Scientology: my concern with it has never been their "beliefs" but the shroud of silence that they impose and demand of members and the way they strong arm the media and the authorities into letting them keep their tactics silent. Whatever problems may exist with most major religions, their beliefs are out there in public for scrutiny, debate and argument. No one had to break out the Bible or the Koran out of a church or a mosque like it was a scene from a Mission Impossible movie.

The fact that Paul Thomas Anderson's film that was going to be the origin story of how Hubbard created Scientology was stopped, I have my doubts that Haggis will get the film that he wants to make out there too.

never found anything particularly hypnotic or compelling about it. maybe i am below average intelligence.

they're evaluations of me were consistent though, apparently i was a real mess in a bunch of categories, but they could fix me up if i became a scientologist.

idleprimate, based on all that I have read about Scientology, you're just like the average person who has taken introductory courses in Scientology. Statistically most people leave within the first couple of years because it does absolutely nothing for them. Scientologists also tell everyone that they're a mess and that they can help, because they can't exploit you and take your money if they tell you you're already perfect.

Scientology started out as a self-help type program, until psychiatrists started looking into it and realized that their methods were highly questionable and not grounded in any real Science, which is why Scientology is so very anti-Psychiatry. It also supposedly has some basis in the occult, because Hubbard was hugely into Aleister Crowley.

One of my favourite Hubbard quotes on that subject was:

A psychiatrist kills a young girl for sexual kicks, murders a dozen patients with an ice pick, castrates a hundred men.

It has a pretty good method for recruitment, because they usually target addicts and have programs for helping inmates. The people who stick with it usually don't have the best education. They have a lot of programs for literacy, which is just about the only thing they actually educate people on in their schools. And claim to cure just about everything.

The real issue, at least for me*, is not that they have weird or ridiculous beliefs, but the fact that they don't believe in real medicine and that a lot of their techniques are actually detrimental to people's mental health. Also because of their Rehabilitation Project Force, where they have been known to send people with serious illnesses and diseases; or people who simply want out; or members who have spoken out against the church. There they are forced to do "hard physical labour and intense ideological study to break a subject's will."

I'm sorry if I repeated anything, I tried to read all the comments, but was way too enthusiastic about the subject not to say something as soon as possible.

PS. There's an ad for sciengology.org at the bottom of this page.

*I am also an atheist, but I don't have anything against other people's beliefs, I simply don't believe in God.

To those who use Einstein as their token "aha!" to prove god exists because the smartest guy we know believed in god: Find the truth rather than continuing to spout the same old misinformation.

Einstein was being questioned by a priest or some other religious person about god and such and, as he said later and often, he was being polite. He did not believe in magic. He believed in truth.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"

Nat Kittyface wins.

As an agnostic, I do get annoyed when I get lumped with atheists. I believe in some kind of creative force, but I don't believe anyone on this planet has the slightest clue what that creative force is. It is human nature to try and put a human face on this creative force.

If horses had religion, they would have a god that looked like a horse.

The Golden Rule is the basis of all religion, do unto others aka don't fuck with my shit and I won't fuck with yours. You believe what you want, I am cool with that, but DO NOT tell me what to believe.

People who believe absurdities can be persuaded to commit atrocities.
- attributed to Voltaire.

Millions of dead motherfuckers, all because they gave the wrong answer to the God Question.
"Do you believe in God?"
"No."
BANG! Dead!
"Do you believe in God?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe in MY God?"
"No."
BANG! Dead! My God has a bigger dick than your God!
- George Carlin

Fredo:Because human beings are still moved by curiosity and need as to their nature and their place in this vast universe and, in light of the absence of an owner's manual, we all try to approximate the answers to the big, tough questions as best we can?

In my experience, most religions do not approve of curiosity. They repress it by providing final, dogmatic answers, in line with their policies. 99% percent of believers were raised in their religion, they never questioned it or chose it, they were simply brought up with it. Their religious beliefs are simply part of their mental blueprint, closed off to inquiry. It's more or less the same as with political orientation - chances are that if you were brought up in a liberal surrounding, you will be a liberal with regards to most issues.
I really really hate it when people say that atheists believe as well, that atheism is a religion. No, it is not. We are defined by the lack of belief. By a lack of organization, churches, rituals. We are just people who decided that there is simply no proof that a god exists. If tomorrow I was provided by a bona fide proof of a god's existence, I would say - hey, he/she/it exists! Until then, it is up to religious people to prove that they are right. I do not have to respect any unsubstantiated claim in this world, so neither do I have to respect your particular choice to believe in Xenu/Christ/Odin/Zeus.
As someone who was once a catholic, but then became an atheist - it is a scary world out there. But it is also, a beautiful world, full of wonders of nature and man. It's horrifying to live your life knowing that this is all there is, there's no magical do-over in the after life. You and your life are unique and special but oh,so fragile and temporary. Terrorists rushing into their deaths in order to be awarded numerous virgins and their god's approval might benefit from a small cup of this perspective...

Hi, Jim! I was reading what you had to say about atheism, and please forgive me if I say that I think you're a bit mistaken. I'm not proselytizing here - merely making a statement.

Atheism as a word is a Greek construct; it means "No God." Atheists do not believe in any Deity, or any Authority superior to themselves. "No Gods, No Masters," you see.

Everything is reasonable, everything can be explained rationally. Faith is a null concept, an abstraction that is unnecessary.

It is possible to be ethical and moral, and to live a moral life, without having the threat of some supernatural punishment hanging over your head if you do wrong.

Beliefs? In what?

The Roman philosopher Lucretius had two things to say about religion:
1. Fear is the first mother of the gods.
2. Many are the evils to which religion has led men.

I'd like to restate once more that whatever your feelings are on God or religion of any kind, those feelings always start with belief. God isn't provable or disprovable. There is no evidence to either support or refute the idea of God.

The Christian assertion is, "I believe there is a God."
The Athiest assertion is, "I believe there is NOT a God."

The reason so many people see Atheism as it's own religion is because so many people understand this logic. It always starts with belief rather than disbelief, precisely because it is outside the realm of scientific scrutiny.

Also for the record, Agnosticism comes in many forms, but the most widely accepted is that "I believe there could be a God." If that's how you feel, yet you proclaim to be an Atheist, then you need to re-evaluate how you characterize yourself.

Goood, goooooooood. Feel the hate flowing through you. Soon, you will leave behind the trappings of your pitiful faith and join us on the side of real fruit smoothies.

Superasente - I don't see how the question of god, the supposed creator of universe and an omnipotent being is outside the realm of scientific scrutiny. Physics, astronomy, biology, anthropology - and science in general would be quite different were there some proof of god. Since there is no proof (and science leaves the door open for all possibilities), at the moment we're dealing with the hypothesis that there is no such being.
Things have changed significantly since the time that religion was the primary tool of explaining the world - we now know that the world is round, know what gravity is, have discovered evolution, decoded the DNA, etc. etc, and, consequently, god's supposed jurisdiction has been shrinking century after century. First the catholic church reluctantly acknowledged the idea of a heliocentric system, then they begrudgingly acknowledged evolution claiming that Genesis was metaphoric. This is always an interesting subject to me because I will enjoy seeing how much more of the Bible and old dogmas will be abandoned along the way of scientific progress. When will they abandon the idea that Jesus died to atone the "original sin" since they had already said that Genesis should not be real literally and that there was no tree of good and evil? That book has more plot holes in it than a Michael Bay movie.
Fredo: what I mean by not having respect for other people's faith is that I don't see why that area of life should be a taboo. I will gladly discuss my atheism with anybody, same as I will discuss my taste in music, books, politics, yet most religious people feel opposed to any sort of intelligent debate on the subject of their faith.

Astounded, God has always been a sufficient explanation for puzzles that otherwise seem scientific. Early man didn't understand thunder and lightning, so they imagined it was the work of God. Modern man doesn't understand the erratic behavior of electrons (why they behave differently under observation than they do while unobserved), and again, are prepared to pin it on God. As long as there are scientific questions that need answering, there will be those who pin it on God. That doesn't mean those questions don't have answers, it just means they haven't been uncovered yet.

Even if all scientific puzzles could be answered however, we would still have the idea of God. It's not going anywhere. Certainly, we can refute different assertions made in religious texts (evolution refuting the creation story, or dinosaur bones and ice-core samples refuting the biblical time-line) but that is not the same thing as using science to refute the idea of God in general.

Forming a hypothesis that there just isn't a God because physics, astronomy, biology, anthropology - and science in general can't confirm his existence -- that's just bad science. In order for something to fall under scientific scrutiny, it has to be able to be dis-proven. There is no way we can disprove the existence of God, so there is no way it falls under any scientific method, and so any perspective on the topic is one built upon belief. Using your example, the belief that the earth is the center of the universe is disprovable; Jesus dying on the cross to save us from original sin is not.

Look you guys, I think we can all agree that everyone has a right to their own-ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.

Jadine: sorry for the mess. I hate getting sucked into this pointless debate.

Scully: I wouldn't laugh at the Muslims just yet. Christians are okay though. Just remind them that Jesus said to show the other cheek.

superasente: I always think of it this way -- Science tries to answer the question "How?" (As in "How did the solar system come to be? How does electricity work?") while Religion tries to answer the question "Why?" ("Why am I here? Why is there good and evil?")

FAITH WAAAAAAR!!!

How has no one said this yet?

Superasente - there's also no way to disprove Godtopus, unicorns or Russell's teapot circling the Earth. To claim that a god who was somehow able to create the infinite universe and everything in it and is at the same time preoccupied with our most private and intimate thoughts and concerns is not relevant scientifically is laughable. This creature would defy conventional physics and other natural laws. Since in our entire history of the world there hasn't been scientific evidence that such a being exists, it is safe to form a hypothesis that there is a small likelihood of its existence. Science will answer most of the questions (maybe all of them) eventually, and for everything else there is philosophy. One of my college professors defined philosophy as a continuous quest for enlightenment and knowledge. Theology on the other hand claims to have the final answer and that is god. Therefore, it tries and struggles to fit everything within the already provided framework, pushing square pegs in round holes if necessary. Religions tie themselves into knots trying to explain why bad things happen to good people. You can have a) a distant preoccupied god who doesn't care for his creation and is therefore a bastard, b) a caring god who for reasons known only to him punishes his people, c)blind chance - you get cancer because of the unfortunate glitch in your DNA, you fall under a bus because you have left your house 5 minutes late that day. I know it's uncomfortable to live in the world of option c but I also wouldn't like to live under the power of a guy who doesn't seem to give a damn about any of us. Would you?
And to finish off with a quote from the brilliant and sorely missed Douglas Adams: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Holy cow, wasn't the whole thing about Scientology? How did this become a debate about atheism and agnosticim and bullshit-religion in general?

Anyway, here's my two cents:
Atheism is not a religion. Never was, never will be (hopefully). It isn't based on faith or tradition. There is no dogma. It's one of two positions of believe - either you have it (theism), or you don't (atheism). The correct definition of an atheist is "someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods, someone who lacks believe in divine entities".
Agnosticism is **not** a middle thing between these two, and surely not against any of them, but deals with knowledge (and the admission that you don't have it), not with belief. So yes, one can (and should...) be an agnostic atheist. Or an agnostic theist. Or you could be a gnostic theist, but that would make you end up either in a mental ward or on national television leading your very own megachurch. Or a gnostic atheist, which would make you end up in a mental ward, period.

Having said that, I conclude that until someone brings forth even one teeny bit of evidence for religions' and religious people's massive claims (about everything, from the nature of their god's character to the right way to handle my private parts) the only decent stance towards any of that is more than halfway towards atheism, and all the way towards areligionism. Which should, naturally, include disbelief in and major scepticism towards a religion that was so very obviously tailored together by a guy who couldn't bear the thought of his books ending up with the millions of other EFPs and ESFPs in secondhand bookshops and book exchanges worldwide.

Which, I might add, doesn't make scientology better or worse than christianity, judaism, islam, mormonism, zoroastrianism, whateverism. The fact that more than one person more than 50 years ago took more than a year or two for tailoring together a cult doesn't make it more true, respectable or, indeed, authentic. In other words, old shit doesn't smell better than new shit, and isn't less shitty either.

Damn, after years of learning I still can't properly handle 'it's' and 'its'. Sorry.

By the way, Yossarian, atheists don't proselytize. Unless, of course, your math teacher also proselytized you to mathematics. Also, someone doesn't automatically become an asshole by pointing out that ´(and how) you're wrong and/or your idea about god (and reality...) is inconsistent and illogical.

If this discussion is going to continue I think we should all stop using definitions of the word "Atheist" to define the atheist perspective. As it has been pointed out, "atheist" is a word for someone that believes there is not a God. But it doesn't mean the Christian God only. It means any God. For example, early Christians were accused of being "atheists" because they didn't believe in the god's of the Romans? True story.

So do you believe in every God throughout history? No? Then you're an atheist. Christians are atheists because they believe Thor is fictional. Budhists are atheists because they believe Godtopus is imaginary. Everyone is an atheist in some form or another.

Maybe it's a good idea to stop using the definition of the word as a means to make a point, and focus on the belief structure of atheists instead.

@ Superasente
maybe the lack of scientific evidence does not point to science not being able to fathom god's existence, maybe it simply points to god's non existence? Maybe the simple answer is the real one.
I just think that it is up to people who have unsubstantiated claims about the world and universe we live in to provide arguments and proof. If I claim that there is a big potato in the sky which spawned the universe and will judge us all in the end, sending some to french fry heaven and others to casserole hell, it is up to me to provide some proof and logic to this claim. A book written by shepherds in the bronze age is simply not enough proof for some of us to buy Christianity or Judaism.

I agree with almost everything you just wrote, astounded. Christianity has been around for close to 2000 years. Religion in general much longer. The things we have discovered about the earth's history, physics, biology -- and well everything -- those things aren't integrated or respected by any religion. Organized religion is notoriously resistant to new discoveries; they either irrationally reject new theories and ideas (evolution) or take forever to come around. Both you and I realize that organized religion is broken.

Where we differ is the conclusion we've made since our shared realization. You conclude that religion is a lie. I simply conclude that religion is wrong. You don't want to buy Christianity or Judaism? Great, I don't blame you. But to completely discount spirituality or the existence of something? Feels like over-kill.

I try to integrate every new thing I learn into my idea of God. Do I beleive in yahweh? No. Do I believe in an eternal heaven with all my loved ones? No, I don't (who wants to spend an eternity with their parents anyway?). But I believe in a God, an energy, a power of some kind. It's my own special soup of faith, I guess.

Yossarian, atheists cannot push their beliefs onto anyone, because they *have* none. They *lack* belief, that's exactly what being an atheist is about.

Atheists might have world views and opinions about god - just as a maths teacher has an opinion about maths. But you'd never accuse him of proselytizing for mathematics. He simply explains - that's exactly what atheists, non-theists and even deists do. They take a person's or a group's belief, look at it, and point out the mistakes.

Also, the difference between "persuade" and "convince" is big.
(At least I hope it is in your language, too. In mine, it sure is. The first means "talking someone into something" and basically lacks reason and/or good sense. Like you'd persuade your little brother to eat an earthworm. The latter has to do with feasible evidence; the way you'd make a jury in a court find somebody guilty or not guilty on the basis of common sense (for want of a better word))

Now I know there are assholes in any religion, gender, country, of every eye-colour and height. The thing is, most religious people regard anyone who hints at exactly how unprobable and how illogical - and, yes, silly - the whole god-concept is - even when s/he's otherwise polite and moderate in choice of words - as an asshole. Their requirement for assholism is generally painfully low. You just have to say something reasonable and immediately you're accused of being subhuman asshole scum who's hating god.
The non-theists I know, and those on Pajiba, are not insulting without having been provoked.

I don't want to get too far into splitting hairs on the semantics but I have met a lot of atheists who believe very strongly that there is no god, and that the major theistic religions are incorrect and absurd. They argue this belief very stridently. I don't know what else to tell you, but that counts as a belief. It's not like atheists have no opinion on the matter, opt not to take any side, and exist in some ideological vacuum. Atheists are fully capable of taking a side and stating it strongly.

Now you may want to argue that "most Christians are too sensitive" etc. etc. but that has nothing to do with the point I was making. In fact we probably agree on most things, just not this ridiculous notion that the beliefs held by atheists are based on truth and objectivity, therefore they don't count as "beliefs" the same way that religious faiths do.

I don't have a problem with your beliefs, just the hypocrisy that you attach to them.

I'm an atheist, too. If you would like, we can discuss all the reasons why.

But if I have to sit here and listen to other atheists profess that only religious people can proselytize and when an atheist states their beliefs it is like a math teacher explaining a theorem... you have to give me a fucking break.

Guess what, {fill in the religion here} also feels that they have absolute truth on their side, and whatever poorly reasoned arguments they throw out there are backed by righteousness and not held to the same standards as the other side. It's a form of hypocrisy.

I love you yossarian. So much, all the time.

To find truth, I use a broom made entirely out of dicks.
It's more useless, entertaining, and I don't have to worry about the neighbors borrowing it and mysteriously "misplacing it during the packing".

idleprimate, Sorry, I guess I don't know you as a commenter well enough to tell when you are being sarcastic. My bad.

I don't consider myself agnostic anymore because I lack belief in any god and am not a spiritual person, superasente. I only stated I was an atheist in my original comment to give more context on my perspective of Scientology, because I couldn't claim to agree with any of the other atheists who had commented before me on cults or religion. I do, however, agree with Yossarian's view that some atheists will proselytize their own stance (or belief, if you prefer to call it), but I have no intention of changing other people's minds. If someone still perceives me as being religious for not believing in anything, then so be it.

I also don't think that any religion should be exempt from criticism or that any particular one is more credible than the rest. I do think that a distinction can be made between religions and cults, but I would leave that discussion up to people who have studied them at length rather than make any attempt myself. I would suggest to anyone who is interested that hasn't already read about it to look up Operation Snow White, which led to Scientology's status as a religion. I just have happened to spend a great deal of time reading accounts from former Scientologists, along with reports from people who have studied it from a more objective perspective, and discovered some pretty heinous accusations and hoped to bring it into the discussion. I certainly wouldn't hold it against every follower, because I know that not all of them are aware of everything that goes on within the organization, nor are they personally responsible for the wrong doings of others. The same goes for any person of any religion.

Feel free to check out Phil Hellenes, my current favourite philosophically inclined scientist, on youtube, and A.C. Grayling and Sam Harris

Thanks, Rooks, I'll be sure to look them up. I'm already somewhat familiar with Sam Harris.

I just wish he'd written a better story.
Posted by: Odnon at January 8, 2011 9:59 PM

If this were facebook, and giving thumbs-up were cool I'd give you a thumps-up to express wordless consent.

Uda, and while you're at it, check out Matt Dillahunty. There are gems in almost everything he says. And QualiaSoup. Ah, you'll find most of them right away, because the really good ones are all linked together one way or another.

Yossarian, the thing is, the intensity of an atheist's "belief that there is no god" is related to the negative correlation between the massive claims that theists make about their gods, and the evidence that is (not) there. I can relate to everyone who likes to imagine some vague conscious force that was before the big bang, or formed or /is/ the natural laws or something. That's deism, or panentheism. Einstein believed in something like that - fine. It's a matter of choice. I personally don't need it and don't see the point.

But now look at judeo-christian god(s). They care about what kind of flour and oil you use when you eat, and which direction the goat faces when you cut its throat. How you wear your hair. What you think about while you're checking out someone's butt. Is it strident of me to tell people that this is just plain silly? That no god could or should be like this, and that if s/he/it were, praising is not exactly the appropriate thing to do?
We end up in the same situation when looking at the bigger picture. An all-powerful, all-knowing AND all-loving god is logically impossible right away. The concept of heaven and hell and an all-loving god are logically impossible, too.(One can abandon logic along the way, of course. Most of the clergy already has, or so it seems.) That's not personal opinion, any more than a math teacher pointing out that three and five equals eight is an expression of his personal opinion. He'll stridently insist that this is so, though, and state it strongly, and if one of his pupils continuously rejects it, he'll probably start being an asshole to this pupil due to total exasperation. Especially if the pupil starts mumbling holy-book-quotes to ward him off.

I'd really like to know where exactly you think an atheist's standpoint doesn't conform with objectivity and commonly feasible truth. Atheism is exactly like disbelief in fairies, a good Uwe Boll movie, and the omnipotence of my left shoe. Until there is evidence for any of that, non-belief and scepticism really are the only reasonable stances.

Also, the more batshit crazy the claims get, the more one should be entitled to lean towards "strong" nonbelief. Anything else would be dishonest and seems rather naive to me. It's about probability. Maybe there is a giraffe in my neighbours bedroom - it's unlikely, but possible, so I am in the middle between belief and nonbelief (maybe leaning a tiny bit towards nonbelief). I am undecided and would go check for myself. But then my neighbour adds that the giraffe is invisible, can play poker and only drinks Absolut Vodka. That makes me an invisible-pokerplaying-vodkadrinking-giraffe nonbeliever, for what I think are obvious reasons. Not 100%, but a good solid 99,9. There's atheism for you. Where is this absolute? Hypocritical? Where is this a religion-like belief or a personal opinion?

I apologize in advance for any bad grammar and weird English, and also for any feelings of enmity that unavoidably ensue when two people talk about religion/atheism these days.

...an interesting if typical discussion between atheists and those who chose to follow fictional beings...

Some of you don't even have the common courtesy to be respectful when you're casually giving a recap of the conversation.

Buncha' fucking animals on the internet, I swear.

Oh, why the heck did I type my fingers frilly? Yossarian, please just go for QualiaSoups "Lack of belief in gods" video on youtube, he'll explain the whole 'middle ground'-thing ("...opt not to take any side, and exist in some ideological vacuum..") and the "cold" and faith-free logic in rejecting the biblical God in particular much more eloquently and more to the point than I ever, ever, ever could. What he says is/was actually exactly what I meant.

Damn, why wasn't I born in an English-speaking country. It's so unfair.

Jami, yes, I am, and I hate it. It's just... they own my pictures. Being on facebook I at least have the illusion of control over who gets to see them and who doesn't.

Hi everyone!

I just wanted to point out that by definition, atheism cannot be considered a religion. (The definition of "religion" includes worship of a superior/creative being.) A belief is not the same as a religion. Faith is also a different word. Thanks!

re·li·gion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Atheism fits readily into the definition, Anna von Beav.

he left Scientology in 2009 after expressing his unhappiness over the group’s support of Proposition 8 and its stance on homosexuality.

Wait, he left because of that, not because the religion is a bat-shit crazy scam? So basically, he has the same issues with Scientology as the Southern Baptists?

You people do realize that the Bible wasn't written to explain "how the world works" right? That's not the point of the Bible. I'm not a Christian because I don't understand what the properties of a black hole are or the genetic code of creatures in the deep sea. I'm a Christian because I believe, as I feel its harder not to, that there is a God who created this universe and wants to have a personal relation with his greatest creation: man. Made in his own image and likeness.

The Bible is about understanding the character of God. Not about understanding how he made the world. It's about the purpose of life, not about how life came to be.

And Scientology? It isn't a religion. It has been proven wrong. It's a scam.

I normally love the discussions here, even when it drifts away from movies, but for some reason religion seems to bring out the stupid in most people.

H/T to Yossarian for explaining it so well.

Simple fact is, if you have an answer to the question "Is there a God?" then you are taking a faith position. Nothing wrong with that, but remember, if your answer is "No" you're just as 'faithy' as any other person who has picked an answer to an untestable question, and you look like a complete fucking moron and hypocrite if you try to deny that. Which is deliciously ironic if you also take the time to call other people stupid.

@superasente
No. That's strong atheism, not default atheism. Default atheism is simply "I don't believe in any gods or goddesses" not "I believe that no gods or goddesses exist." All atheists will agree with the first statement (that's why it's the default position) but not all atheists will agree with the second.

Atheists are not firmly rooted in their beliefs because there is no atheist belief to be firmly rooted in. It's a lack of a belief. If the atheists on this board seem confrontational, it's probably because their beliefs (and lack of beliefs) are so often misconstrued and mis-characterized.

I'll say it simply. A theist is someone who says "There's a god." An atheist doesn't then say, "There is no god," they say, "I don't believe you. And I won't believe you until you provide sufficient justification for your statement."

I generally don't care what people choose to believe as long as they aren't using their personal belief system to tell everyone else how they should live. As a scientist and a woman I'm only a lesbian short of being most religious organisations favourite person anyways.

I am more than happy to not get involved in why I personally don't believe in any of the religious explanations of how the world came to be and what gods exist, similarly I don't require any reasons/justification of why a religious person agrees with their religion of choice. It is a personal decision.

Here's my problem: If I want to debate whether something is real/exists etc and I say that it does (note the emphasis here on not simply stating what I choose to believe but going as far as to tell others that I am in fact right), is it not then my responsibility to back this up with tangible factual evidence?

For example, I believe that crocs are an abomination. Evidence A) they make you look like a dumbass. Evidence B) overpriced pieces of plastic.
Is this not how debates go? Have I misunderstood this??? As far as I've always been aware the responsibility of the person claiming theirs is the correct truth is the one who should 'prove it' and not the person(s) who is a non-believer of their truth.

Again before the chants of atheist scum come my way I'm only interested here in the finer points of debating, not your choice of god(s)/goddesses.

Superasente:Hell, in some places Atheists are organized, write charters, pay for billboards that tout their beliefs, and meet every week so they can be with others that share their beliefs without persecution.
You just described just about any human organization, be it a celebrity fan club, furries club or a random geek group.
Atheism is primarily defined by individualism. That's why atheists are so under-represented in the States despite cca 15% of irreligious people (I remembered the statistic I read recently).
You can say that atheists rely on the scientific method instead of on blind faith, but you cannot say that atheism is a form of belief - like someone previously quoted - if atheism is a religion,then baldness is a hair colour...
Maybe relying on the need for (physical proof) is wrong, but if I ask for proof for just about anything else in my life, then I demand proof for this being that supposedly created the world I live in, me and is concerned by my personal choices and decisions...

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

I agree that atheism is a *belief*. I firmly, fully, staunchly believe that there is no god, neither singular nor multiple, neither masculine nor feminine nor "none of the above".

However, this has naught to do with religion. Religion does not equal belief. They are not the same thing. I can believe that the Saints are going to the Superbowl again (though I will be sorely disappointed); that doesn't make it a religion (admittedly in part because I've seen them play before). Atheism is not *a set of* beliefs; it is a single belief. There are no rituals or specific moral codes or practices involved with atheism as a whole; while individual atheists may have personal moral codes, they are certainly not "agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." I would argue that atheist groups are quite dissimilar to the churchgoing experience, though in all honesty I don't belong to any of those groups, and I certainly don't go to meetings. Then again, one could argue that AA is a religion given that criterion. Additionally, atheism is a separate idea from any beliefs "concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"; that's where science comes in, which is a separate set of ideas from religious or irreligious ones. If you don't believe in god, then the nature of the universe has nothing to do with religion.

Here's the real difference, and the cause of much of this argument, I think: that last part. "Something one believes in and follows devotedly." Atheism is not a thing to follow. It is *a belief*; not something one *believes in*. There has to be something there to believe in; to have a belief requires no such something. As I've already said, there are no tenets of atheism; there are no rules, no rituals, no moral codes. The difference, while it may seem ridiculous to argue, is there.

So now that we're down to the very minutiae of semantics, I will also add that much as with persons of various religions, proselytizing is a very individual thing. I've seen many religious people who do and many who don't; I've seen many irreligious people who do and many who don't. It depends entirely on the *individual*, not the *label*, which so many people seem to forget when discussing religion (and politics, for that matter). I have never told anyone that they are ridiculous for having faith in god, or xenu, or Buddha, or the flying spaghetti monster, or godtopus. Nor will I. Pseudo-Mr., on the other hand, loves nothing more than to tell people they are ridiculous if they believe in such things. He loves to tell nuns ringing bells at Christmas time, in the cheeriest tones you can imagine, that there is no god. He is, in general, a confrontational person about such matters. And so, I never assume that someone who believes in god ...well, I never assume anything, to be quite honest. It seems rather foolish.

I believe in Joe Pesci.
Posted by: zeke the pig at January 10, 2011 10:01 AM

... because it's amazing what he can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

piedlourde, I wouldn't run around screaming "There is no Go~~~d!" into anyone's face either. Even though I could, and despite the fact that billboards, television short commercials, books, newspapers, the clergy and stupid politicians scream "There is my God and he wants you to do x" into /my/ face almost every effing day. Then again, I wouldn't want to descend to that level.

What I do, though, is insist that it's not an act of faith, belief or religion, but a simple act of universal logic, to disbelieve in the biblical God, and Yahweh, and Allah, in particular, because all of them (or "that one", whatever...) are logically contradictory within themselves and therefore impossible per se. Ender, please tell me how it is "faithy" to reject something that is both x and not-x at the same time? (As in, to take QualiaSoup's example, "a perfect god that needs worship" - something that is perfect can by definition not /need/ anything. And that's only one.) Basic logic as by Aristotle's 'Principle of contradiction'. No faith in sight.

@superasente

Whaaa? Is there another TheRealVeon you're talking to? Where did I say that I don't care about belief? About what I believe and about what other people believe? About how we determine whether are beliefs are accurate or not? Could you please provide a quote where I said that I don't care. Could you please provide a quote where I disowned by own belief structure.

Because it seems to me that my posts to sansho1 and Anna von Beav convey the exact opposite meaning.

Atheists are not firmly rooted in their beliefs because there is no atheist belief to be firmly rooted in.

To me, a comment like this seems meant to refute the idea that atheism is a belief. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

@superasente

It's meant to explain that atheism isn't a belief, it a lack of a belief.

Wow, have I wasted some time here today. Long, self-righteous, defensive posts that add up to nothing more than, let's face it, "Leave my imaginary friend alone!"

Fuckin' football players constantly remind us all that they must "give all credit to GOD" -- because, yeah, an omnipotent deity really would give a SHIT about your fucking football career... If there is ANYTHING in today's culture that better sums up the Moronic element of deism than the constant self-referential praise athletes give to God (when they WIN, mind you), then I've forgotten it.

Sigh. This species is doomed.