"I'm Unique and Unrepeatable" -- just like everyone else (except for identical twins and, coming soon, artificial clones).

Perhaps someone could set it to music.

What is it about being in-duh-idual, anyway? Given that it's pretty much a fact, why do people make so much of it? It's like those people who think that "love" is what makes humans special and different. As far as I can see, it's one thing we have in common with lots of animals. Higher maths is uniquely human, as is music, language, humour, and a whole range of rather unpleasant things.

Bleargh. Atheist Sunday School makes me twitch. We don't have pizza socials for the same reason that People Who Don't Play Golf don't. It has been aptly put, "Atheists have nothing in common." Maybe I'm biased - I'm not a joiner.

I like the idea of there being a group to help teach kids ethics and morals without the religious overtones because reinforcement outside of home is always helpful. However, the idea of atheist "organizations" seems a bit antithetical. Once there is a group, there is a leader and rules which seems a bit contradictory to personal evidence based belief. I'm nit-picking, I know. Just haven't had my tea yet this morning.

Isn't it the Unitarian Universalists that are supposed to be athiests who get lonely on Sunday mornings?

Seriously Amy, I think if you could get inside the heads of 90-odd percent of the people in the pews on Sunday mornings you'd find a lot of them are only there because they think its good for the kids or because they enjoy the company.

Views on "cosmic" things tend to be pretty personal but you might be surprised at how few jibbering lunatics you'll find at the church picnic.

And I think ANY group of people who get together for ANY reason have the potential to let their original charter mutate into a reason for rounding people up and mistreating them.

One of Vonnegut's (sp?) ideas that I still find compelling is having everyone in the world count off by 20 or so and swear an oath of undying loyalty to everyone with the same number and telling everyone with a different number to piss off. We all need to associate with people since we are a social animal. The problems we run into mostly come from trying to enforce the boundaries between "tribes."

That people should want to take a day off and spend it in pleasant contemplation about "what it all means" with like-minded neighbors seems pretty natural to me.

That Athiest are getting the itch is a little bit "ironic" in the Alanis Morrisette sense.

Norman:

I don't see it as being a "joiner" necessarily. Now , if they added a teens and adult "class" and such and a general expectation that they continue through the whole thing - that'd be different.
Kids at that age should learn ethics and how to deal with other people in polite society. Quite a few parents don't feel comfortable dealing with it on their own. This provides a good alternative. Kids want usually have an even stronger desire (I think) to associate with peers and to look for authority figures. It's usually later in life that people learn to be comfortable enough with their perspectives to feel fine standing alone - if they ever do.

Hopefully part of this "education" is being taught to question it as well.


"Once there is a group, there is a leader and rules which seems a bit contradictory to personal evidence based belief." Isn't that a science class? You're in a group, you're being taught by a leader (the teacher). The difference is that you're also being taught to take it beyond the class (using the scientific method, etc) rather than just blindly accept everything being taught forever. You're given the fundamentals and the tools with which you can continue. That's how I see this "sunday school" concept.

You are not a unique snowflake! So do my Eyes Wide Shut-style secret costume ball orgies count?

"Beautiful or unique" snowflake, that is. One day I'll get it right.

I am adamantly anti-religious, but consider myself open to spirituality. They aren't related in my opinion, in fact, I don't feel that religion has anything to do with god and god's existence.

On the other hand, my bf has no belief in god but supports religion b/c it brings people together (yeah...while brainwashing them and removing their ability to think, or rather, scaring them into giving up their ability to think). We go back and forth on this topic every once in a while, in the end we both agree it's important to be able to set your moral compass through meaningful discussion with other people.

It's also a great idea to prepare your kids for the playground when they're up against the "You don't go to church? You're going to HELL!" crowd. Pleasant people, really, just want what's best for ya...

Of course there's a sunday school for atheists: It's called Unitarian Universalism. Look into it. But no not all of them are atheists.

I was raised that way because my was nominally Catholic and my dad was an atheist Jew. I think my dad still had the best line about God and Atheists:

If there is a god, he probably really likes atheists because they don't ask for anything.

Sounds fine to me. (Even though I have been brain washed by religion)

"it's simply having evidence-based beliefs; i.e., I see no evidence there's a god, therefore I don't believe in god."

Actually, the evidence that there is a God is overwhelming. It is all around you, everywhere. Everything you see, touch, smell, taste and feel, is evidence of God. The human response to the evidence reminds me of Al Gore's book. It's an incovnenient truth. Because to believe in God means we can NOT do whatever we want. We are NOT our own. We DO have to answer to the God who created the universe, and us. And we just don't want to have to do that. Do we?

Everything you see, touch, smell, taste and feel, is evidence of God.

Uh, no, not any more than it's evidence there's a toothfairy.

Because you don't know how all this got here doesn't mean you can just attribute it to god.

So sorry you didn't learn to think rationally, but you might bop on over to criticalthinking.org and try it out.

And no, I don't have to "answer to" an imaginary figure you believe in because you can't deal with admitting to not knowing.

That Athiest are getting the itch is a little bit "ironic" in the Alanis Morrisette sense.

Meaning not ironic, I'm guessing?

Uh, no, not any more than its evidence there's a toothfairy.

What? Everything you see, touch, smell, taste and feel, is evidence of the toothfairy?

Perhaps you might bop on over to criticalthinking.org and try that out. Can you actually show evidence for the tooth Fairy? I mean give it a try Amy. I’d love to here it.
I can not think of one thing that points to the tooth fairy.

While the Unitarian/Universalist church that hosts the interfaith alliance for the separation of church and state meetings I occasionally (rarely as of late) attend, has about twenty percent (declared) atheist membership, another in the Portland area has nearly fifty percent. The Sunday services are not really religiously oriented either.

Both congregations also host meetings of skeptics societies, as well as other groups oriented towards atheists. Rather than just having meetings that are all about atheist unity, they host a variety of groups, so that an atheist is likely to find one that suits their interests. I imagine that what makes this possible is the relatively high concentration of atheists in Portland, but I believe that U/U churches in most places host some sort of skeptics group, quite likely including skeptic oriented Sunday school...

Interesting DuWayne,
I like to attend a skeptics group, although I am not sure an interfaith alliance for the separation of church and state is the right one for me. (not that I don’t believe in separation of church and state. It is just that I am not for removing monuments etcetera.)

DuWayne, good explanation. My town is home to Old Ship Church - the longest continually used ecclesiastical meeting house in the country.

People I know who go there enjoy learning about all sorts of different points of views, religions, etc. When my favorite teacher died of cancer at a very young age (miss you Ms. Audet) she had requested her memorial service be at Old Ship so that there was no religious undertones - just people who cared about her coming together to remember her in a positive way. Maybe I should go check them out!

http://www.oldshipchurch.org/history.html

Our household is not religious, but since we home-schooled our kids, we tried to find places where they could socialize: Suzuki music lessons, phys ed at the YMCA, and so on. One place my wife took our son when he was little was the late afternoon play program at the Congregational Church. The pastor liked having him there because he set such a good example.

"Suzuki music lessons"

I know what you mean (the Suzuki method was used by my piano teacher as well), but every time I hear that, I keep having the visual of a row of guys on Suzuki dirt bikes revving their engines in time, making an interesting - if ear splitting - melody.

That's the point rusty. There is no evidence of a tooth fairy, therefore an atheist would choose not to believe in it. However, someone who believes in god, might as well believe that the thing responsible for all this is the stereotypical toothfairy just as easily as any doctorined god.

The fact that there is a world is not evidence to me that it was created by any sort of entity, being or conciousness. It just is. I see no proof otherwise. If you wanted to present god as a hypothesis, I'm good with that. If you present god as a theory/fact, I need some evidence.

Sounds a bit like those vegatarians who eat those god-awful veggie burgers cuz they absolutely crave a burger but won't allow themselves to eat meat. One part of me says "whatever", the other part says "oh, just order a friggin' buger for god sake".

David, I don't take things on faith, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Nevertheless, I think it's important for kids to have instruction in ethics, and weekend school for that, minus the Great Pumpkin stuff, seems like a good idea.

I've always thought there should be an atheist church where people could bring casseroles and socialize, not to mention support members in need and offer a sense of community for the children. I think the secular Jews have something like this in West L.A., actually.

The fool has said in his heart "There is no God."

My heart doesn't have a little mouth that speaks and chews gum, thanks, but I, personally, don't say there is no god; I say I see no evidence there's a god, therefore I don't believe in god. I likewise do not believe in talking dogs, frozen yogurt that levitates, or the Tooth Fairy, as there's as much proof for the existence of god as there is for these.

I think socialization groups for kids that aren't terribly structured is a good thing. I'd love to go back to the days in which kids regularly roamed free every afternoon, but I don't see that happening in a major way, so this isn't a bad substitute. It also potentially gives parents a way to meet new friends - church tends to be great for that for religious (or outwardly religious) types.

Also, as long as religious groups offer pizza and beer to college students while atheists do not, we'll have religion in this country. :) Religion, for better or worse, is much more than just if you believe in That Big Guy in the Sky. We live in a rather atomized society - unless you can create some sort of social structure that replicates the benefits of religion, I think it's going to be around for a long, long time, whatever the evolution of people's approach to the idea of God.

Amy,

It appears to me (and probably only to me) that the individuals involved in this are trying to reproduce the trappings of a religion. Only, without the icky God thing. A building? Check. A sense of community based on similar religous beliefs? Check. Instruction in values? Check. All they need now is some prayers and a hymnal.

(And no, I'm not religous in any way. I just enjoy irony.)

The fool has said in his heart "There is no God."
--------------
And the wise man says it out loud and online.
There is no god.

Jonathan: The fool has said in his heart "There is no God."

Your point is?

I do get fed up with fools who quote this particular line in a knowing way, as if they were party to deep knowledge. If you are not a fool, Jonathan, now is your opportunity to demonstrate it. Just explaining what your point is, in your own words, would be a good start.

Humankind got along fine for untold centuries when the challenge of mere survival kept them too busy to worry about much beyond finding food and water and keeping warm. Some goofball invented things like a way to make fire on purpose and how to kill a wild buffalo without getting half the tribe killed and the trouble began.

After a big feed, the young'ns were tucked in, the guards were posted to keep hyenas away and the embers were dying down. Og gazed up at the sky and grunted to Ag, "What do you suppose those little points of light up there are for?" And it was all downhill from there.

Science does a great job of answering the What, Where, When and How kinds of questions but doesn't help much with the Why's. People are going to get together to work on questions of Why and different groups are going to come up with different answers. Give the Sunday morning Atheists and the Unitarialists time and they'll be going around with pamphlets. Mix in some politics and they'll get to the Inquisition and the Crusades and Jihad in due time.

Ignoring the fact that people have a spiritual component, a need to ponder the Why's of life is an invitation to societal disaster. Circumstances will sometimes require people to make hard decisions for a greater good and the definition of that "greater good" will suddenly become critical. To live together in any kind of peace, people will always need some template for comparing their most core beliefs, whatever they are.

People who never stop to wonder about why the universe goes to the trouble of existing don't seem especially intelligent or rational to me. On the contrary, they come across as rather shallow and incurious. It's as though they decided it's simply too much work to ponder unknowables so they closed off an entire aspect of existence to save time.

The scariest and most oppresive people in history have always been the ones who insist they have the final answers and some of them have been Atheists. To say there is no god is rhetorically no different from insisting that there is one. It is untestable. (A hypothetical god is different from the tooth fairy etc. in that the theoretical properties of god, omnicient, omnipotent, beneficient, require that god either can't exist or has to exist.)

Atheism can (and has been) used to advance a bloody political agenda just as religion has; there is no higher ground here, just us.

Moreta,
No the point is you can not offer data supporting the truth fairy, however you can offer data supporting God. You can not prove Gods existence, but you can offer proof. Furthermore, everything you see, touch, smell, taste and feel, is not evidence of the tooth fairy. It could however be proof of a creator.
Uh, theories are not facts. Folks miss use the terms all the time. I don’t have a problem with God as a hypothesis, but I do have a problem with the tooth fairy as a hypothesis.
The fact that there is a world is evidence that it was created. By who or what is the question....one that can not be answered. Furthermore, The fact that there is a world is not evidence that there is a tooth fairy.
Amy one can prove there is no tooth fairy. However one can not prove there is no god. Think of it as one can not prove there are ten dimensions. Yet we have modern ideas like string theory that rest on that notion.
Martin, you say; Some goofball invented things like a way to make fire on purpose and how to kill a wild buffalo without getting half the tribe killed and the trouble began.
Well, there has been an arms race from the beginning...it is called evolution so your premise is false.

err evidence of God not proof

Martin said: To say there is no god is rhetorically no different from insisting that there is one. It is untestable.

I agree, due to the nature of the subject, which is by definition, beyond logic. But you understand that Amy is not saying that there is no god. She is responding to the ostensibly testable proposition that there is a god. When no evidence to her satisfaction arises, she concludes that she does not believe the proposed god.

To say there is a god is a positive assertion, and thus should be supported, from her point of view.

Anyway, as one of those wacky Christians, and taking the concept of faith and free will seriously, God as I understand him cannot be logically demonstrated by definition. Neat trick, huh? Of course, why should I bring up Christianity at all? There was never any human who could demonstrate the existance of God, the whole reason for belief in God being an answer to unfathomable mysteries.

So the whole deal is rather moot, from a logical perspective. I am a fan of Pascal.

But in terms of this thread, there are plenty of intelligent people here who talk about ethics all the time. One might even say that it is a preoccupation on this board. So, why not bring our ethical beliefs into daily life and talk to people about stuff? If we need a special "atheist group" to do that, it does indeed show how timid and isolated we are.

Heck, after church coffee communions are not about talking about ethics anyway.

rusty, I think I used the word theory correctly and not interchangeably with the word fact. As in the theory of relativity or gravity for example. These are things that we take for fact because we haven't found anything to disprove them after significant testing.

I think if you read my comment again, you'll see that I didn't suggest there was a tooth fairy that went around giving money for lost teeth, but that a "creator" could just as easily be someone who looks/acts/behaves like the vision we have of the tooth fairy as the gods of recognized doctorines.

martin, I was thinking about your comment about theism answering the question of "why" and I couldn't see it. Why are we here? Because god made it so? That doesn't answer a why for me very well. It's no better than an answer of "Because I said so". Why did god make it so? Because he was bored and needed entertainment? Because he could? That doesn't help me at all.

rusty:

"you can not offer data supporting the truth fairy, however you can offer data supporting God."

Please tell us why this is true and what the data are. TF and God are both presumed to be supernatural, so they are both beyond the realm of proof.

"everything you see, touch, smell, taste and feel...could however be proof of a creator."

These cannot be proof of a creator. They can be facts that support such a proof, but first you need a good hypothesis.

"Uh, theories are not facts."

Less true than false. In science, theories are facts until better theories come along.

"I don’t have a problem with God as a hypothesis, but I do have a problem with the tooth fairy as a hypothesis."

See my previous comment.

"The fact that there is a world is evidence that it was created."

How is that true?

"By who[m] or what is the question....one that can not be answered."

Assuming it was created, why can't the question be answered?

"Amy one can prove there is no tooth fairy."

Please give us your proof.

"However one can not prove there is no god."

Prove this is true. Actually, don't bother. Scientists are not required to disprove nonexistence. Lack of evidence is considered nonexistence.

"Think of it as one can not prove there are ten dimensions. Yet we have modern ideas like string theory that rest on that notion."

Why not? Lisa Randall may do just that next year after the LHC comes on line.

Moreta "martin, I was thinking about your comment about theism answering the question of "why" and I couldn't see it. Why are we here? Because god made it so? "

I don't suggest theism offers a direct answer to "why" questions but rather represents a structure within which to pursue such answers. Other structures are good too.

are trying to reproduce the trappings of a religion.

Not all of the trappings of religion are bad. Groups are natural for humans, and joining something seems to make people feel good. A framework for teaching ethics is good -- just let's not include the stories about the stuff we don't have evidence for. You aren't teaching about Allah, are you, in your church Sunday school? Well, there's as much evidence for Allah (ie, NONE) as there is for the Christian god. Who's right?

There is no evidence of a tooth fairy, therefore an atheist would choose not to believe in it.

I am atheist and a-toothfairyist. Present me with actual evidence either exists, and I'd be happy to believe. P.S. A strong feeling god exists, not knowing where it all came from, and/or being gullible enough to believe whatever the business of religion tells you does not count as evidence.

I've always thought there should be an atheist church where people could bring casseroles...

Naturally, Pat, you think of atheism + casseroles!

(Pat is http://eatingla.blogspot.com/)

To preface...I spent the night shoveling down Xanax after watching the Republican debate...with good reason! Ever since childhood I've looked upon the bible and all other 'theological tomes' as bedtime stories, although the Old Testament gives even Steven King a run for his money in terms of sheer bloodletting and could scar a child for life. However, it positively amazes me when I hear someone express the belief that the bible...oh yeah...the book that grifters have used for years to separate the 'rubes' from their money...the book that was used to burn, drown, stone and abuse women accused of witchcraft...the book that was used to justify the wholesale slaughter of indiginous peoples...is the absolute word of god. Oh please...just shoot me now and put me out of my misery.

In the year 2007 a people who once excelled in technology, put several men on the moon, captured dust from a comet, landed a very expensive remote controlled Tonka truck on Mars, can actually be discussing whether the ENGLISH words written in a book, the equivalent of a celestial Dear Abby, compiled by Jewish scribes writing in ancient greek, stories as told by illiterate sheephearders, who heard a 'voice' in their heads which, by the way, identifies IT/HIMSELF as God, creater of all things natural and un-, can seriously proclaim to the world that they believe that part, if not all of that book, are the words of God Copyright 0000 All rights reserved throughout the known and unknown universe or universes.

To my knowledge not one candidate, democrat or republican, has expressed any doubt in the veracity of that statement. Thus, I have concluded that we are SCREWED! To prevent further damage to my psyche I plan on indulging myself in the one thing human beings are perfectly wired for...SCREWING! Ah...I know...a simplistic act of denial but it feels so good and costs less than Xanax. I, frankly, have no other solution to offer and I have no explaination for this sudden surge toward 'dark age' mentality. I had thought we had left that behind us in Europe around the ninth or tenth century but I guess old 'habits' die hard. I really wish someone could explain to me how, at the start of the 21st century, we are devolving into a theocratic society. It just makes me want to scream..."Where's a mass extinction event when you need one?"

Pleasant dreams.

Why y'all gotta go hatin' on the Tooth Fairy? As a proud recipient of many a dollar from the Tooth Fairy back in the day, I am feeling OPPRESSED. OPPRESSED, I tell you. At least Amy has a mildly kind word for the Toothfairyists.

Thanks, Marion...I needed that laugh!

I love this blog

To say there is no god is [...] untestable.

Sorry, guys, but it is blazingly obvious that an omnipresent god does not exist in the ordinary sense of the word "exist." All you need to test this is to see if you can create a vacuum. The only way round this experiment is to redefine god or to redefine "exist." The latter is the commonly taken option: god exists "outside of space and time," or "in the spiritual dimension," or some such metaphysical nonsense. Literally non sense.

I note that Jonathan has not yet taken the opportunity to show us that he is not a fool.

It's a crock.

From the Book of Moron, Molar 3:16: For the Toothfairy so loved the children that he gave unto them a coin of silver, that whosoever believeth in Him shall cast away the demons of decay and His blessings shall be upon them. Amen.

I'm curious Norman, how does creating a vacuum prove there is no god?

Martin: if god is omnipresent, then you can't create a vacuum, 'cos god's in it. But vacuums behave just as if there is nothing there. The only way round this that I can see is to redefine "god" as something immaterial, or to redefine "exist" as something other than the ordinary sense of the word. In either case, we are taken out of the realm of words that have any discernible meaning.

In plain English, an omnipresent God does not exist. Nothing omnipresent exists except space itself, and that is as close to nothing as you can get.

I accept that this is not much of a theological argument. But theologists don't talk plain English, and it seems to me they are generally talking hot air.

Still no sign of Jonathan. I wonder if he's marshaling his resources, or what.

Good Christ no! One of the many advantages to being a heathen nonbeliever is getting to sleep in on Sunday. Just call me anti-social. : )

That said, who says we don't have groups? I got involved with the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Denver who had a chapter and still belong some 14 years later. (Alas, they don't have one here, one of the few things Denver bests my hometown in.) They were quite sociable and we did form friendships but one problem they bitched about in trying to create social action (their purpose for existing is to enforce church-state separation and to educate to break down the stereotypes about Atheists so this next is ironic) was that Atheists are not joiners. It's true. At least out Atheists aren't. (I suspect there's a great many Atheists sitting in church pews on Sunday morning.)

That said (cue in the syrupy music) that's what friends are for. You don't need church to meet people. Life tends to take care of that. As you pursue your interests, you tend to run into others with like interests and make friends, probably a handful of which are really good friends who can be relied on when need be. The value of my friends was brought home to me little over half a year ago when my daughter fell ill and damned near died. They were there, they helped out anyway they could and really pulled me through emotionally. Friends are great. And probably family if you have family and most people do.

Seriously, the last thing in hell we need is an Atheist church. I went to the first godless march in Washington (with my daughter and grandbaby daddy when grandbaby was only a twinkle in his daddy's eye) and groaned when Michael Newdow in his speech said he wanted to have Atheist legally declared a religion so it could be a protected class. Gimme a break. Religious freedom church-state separation enforced automatically protects and if it doesn't getting it named a religion won't garner any more respect, just more resentment. (And if you've heard of the Brights, don't start; even I think that's downright snobby.) I not only groaned but commented to daughter and her boyfriend "the second they do that I stop calling myself Atheist and start calling myself Nontheist." Guy in front of me turned around, grinned and gave me a thumbs up. I don't want to be part of any "religion" because, frankly, once you do organize, it's got to be under some kind of guidelines that are closed to any other mindset.

Join Atheist groups, be openly Atheist if you've the courage and don't live somewhere this will either get you killed or completely ostracized, and I have heard the Unitarians are open to believe or not and equally respectful to both schools of thought. Their church in my city seems to be and if I ever utterly feel the need to join anything (doubtful but once again no crystal balls and they don't work anyway), I'll check them out. I fear Atheist churches will never really take off because let's face it Atheists don't want to be churched, don't want to subscribe to a set of arbitrary standards.

I mean really who's morals and values are they teaching? Most Atheists agree with one I loathe that is a standard of Christianity and many religions and philosophies -- the do unto others as you would have them do unto you crap. It's egotistical assuming that someone else would necessarily want what you'd want in that situation. Where I may want to be left alone, others would want people flocking around to comfort them, for instance. So, someone has to make decisions on what morals the kiddies in this Sunday school are taught which means they will wind up as rigid as regular church even if it is without the imaginary friend in the sky. I've only known a few Objectivists but, frankly, they were far more obnoxious than most Christians.

It is amusing that this discussion can go on and on when Amy has explicitly stated that until evidence is given she cannot believe in a god. How simple can it get? Until something comes along and shows up with the goods, keep your pie hole closed because you cannot persuade cognitive beings with a "because it is so" mentality.

Here is some "proof" for you.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html

Hey Norman, speaking strictly in rhetorical terms (lest you think I'm trying to recruit you or some shit) your vacuum bit falls into the same circular mire as a theist's schtick. You kinda concede that but throw in a "well, they started it" thing that I don't remember working all that well in Junior High Debate Club.

Whether I create a vaccum at great expense or cheaply assume a region of space with absolutely no matter within it, I still know the laws of physics will apply within that area (just more efficiently without friction.) It needs a little polish, just sayin'.

The three properties of the hypothetical supreme being: omniscient, omnipotent and beneficent allow (maddeningly) for our instruments to be befuddled when it comes to weighing and measuring god and testing her electrical conductivity. If she's there, she couldn't not be there; if she's not there, she has to not be there. Gather friends in comfortable surroundings, serve "refreshments," discuss.

And DaveG, regarding: "Scientists are not required to disprove nonexistence. Lack of evidence is considered nonexistence." Any scientist knows that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's an axiomatic knife that cuts both ways but there it is.

Fred you need to be sharin' that Xanax. The same yahoos who put men on the moon also decided it would be a good idea to have them leave an enscribed plaque telling anyone who came along what clever and honorable folks we all are. The inscription contains the date as July 1969 A.D.

Anyone? Bueler?

They wrote it wrong! They spent billions of dollars and any advanced civilization that stumbles on to it is going to find our rules for latinate grammar and conclude that we were too stupid to live.

Pass me some of that Xanax Fred.

Moreta,
Thanks for your example;
As in the theory of relativity or gravity for example. These are things that we take for fact because we haven't found anything to disprove them after significant testing.
Let me be clearer. Well yes, the fact is that we have a force called gravity. The problem is we can not explain it nor can we accurately predict it. So we have the theory of gravity, while at the same time we have the fact that it exists. There is your difference.
I think if you read my comment again, you'll see that I didn't suggest there was a tooth fairy that went around giving money for lost teeth, but that a "creator" could just as easily be someone who looks/acts/behaves like the vision we have of the tooth fairy as the gods of recognized doctrines.
I am sorry Moreta, I was criticizing Amy, not you. I should have expressed myself better. Unfortunately I was on my way to an event. I thought the rest of your post was very insightful. Of course on could show that the tooth fairy created the universe, if one gave the tooth fairy the traits needed to do so. But one can easily disprove the tooth fairy as long as one sticks to the powers and functions that are usually attributed to it. So, we are in agreement.
DaveG,
No problem. But first I’d like for you to offer data supporting the truth fairy. As I said, the mere fact that the universe exists implies creation. If the universe is created, one of the possibilities is that there was a creator. Another would be that order is an inherent property of matter. That doesn’t prove Gods existence, nor dose it disprove it. But it dose allow the hypothesis to be made.
"everything you see, touch, smell, taste and feel...could however be proof of a creator."
These cannot be proof of a creator. They can be facts that support such a proof, but first you need a good hypothesis.
I said could however. I didn’t say proof.
Uh, theories are not facts."
Less true than false. In science, theories are facts until better theories come along.
So untrue I don’t know what to say. There are many competing theories on the same phenomena. We add or subtract from Theories all the time.
"I don’t have a problem with God as a hypothesis, but I do have a problem with the tooth fairy as a hypothesis."
See my previous comment.
Go ahead, try to support a truth fairy hypothesis. It will be disproved immediately.
"The fact that there is a world is evidence that it was created."
How is that true?
Because there are to options, it was always here or it came in to existence. So it is evidence. Notice I did not say proof.
Assuming it was created, why can't the question be answered?
Because there are competing solutions. One day it might.
"Amy one can prove there is no tooth fairy."
Please give us your proof.
You prove there is, I am not doing all the heavy lifting here. Then, I will show you that you are wrong.
"However one can not prove there is no god."
Prove this is true. Actually, don't bother. Scientists are not required to disprove nonexistence.
Weak for all the reasons listed above. You can not disprove God. That is why you are asking me. Ask any professor of philosophy. Read some philosophy. It is good stuff.
Lack of evidence is considered nonexistence.
Don’t get stuck on stupid. Where do the ten dimensions of String theory come form? Relativity? Put forth sixty years before we could begin to collect evidence to support it. Are you even a scientist?
"Think of it as one can not prove there are ten dimensions. Yet we have modern ideas like string theory that rest on that notion."
Why not? Lisa Randall may do just that next year after the LHC comes on line.
So you just refuted this then; Lack of evidence is considered nonexistence.
Stop the circular BS.
Amy,
Not all of the trappings of religion are bad. Groups are natural for humans, and joining something seems to make people feel good. A framework for teaching ethics is good -- just let's not include the stories about the stuff we don't have evidence for. You aren't teaching about Allah, are you, in your church Sunday school? Well, there's as much evidence for Allah (ie, NONE) as there is for the Christian god. Who's right?
Now we are in total agreement.
I am atheist and a-toothfairyist. Present me with actual evidence either exists, and I'd be happy to believe. P.S. A strong feeling god exists, not knowing where it all came from, and/or being gullible enough to believe whatever the business of religion tells you does not count as evidence.
God can not be proven to exist. However, God can not be proven to not exist. The tooth Fairy can be proven to not exist. That is why your earlier analogy was illogical.
Norman,
Who says God is omnipresent or even good for that matter? God could be this kid who has are universe in his bed room. (not actually, but something along those lines.)
Nothing omnipresent exists except space itself...Not proven. As a side note, even the emptiness idea is going away. Ever heard of dark energy? The either is back! Maybe light dose propagate in something hummm?

The arguments are trite by now.

All-powerful: then create a rock he can't lift. Also, all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere and all good defines god out of existence unless you consider standing by while babies are raped all good, screaming free will doesn't let him off the hook for all good. What "good" mere human would say I didn't stop him from raping that baby because he wanted to? I had to let him decide that for himself. They arguably might have been too scared to stop him but an all-powerful being can't make that argument now, can he? Hmmm? Not too mention, all powerful could erase any desire to do evil and would not have "created" the devil in the first place so don't hand me that nonsense either.

As for the old tired argument from design, give me a break and please, please, please give me something new. If something such as this world implies a maker just by it's existence then that "maker" would imply a maker just by his existence and the one that made and the one that made him and the one that made him...

Geeze!

It's easier to be a Pastafarian:

http://www.venganza.org/

Pirates stop global warming!

"The arguments are trite by now...Geeze!"

Oh come on Donna, if it's too boring, scroll up and check out the new posts. The Atheists are looking for a Sunday meeting place and trying out lime jello salad recipies. How is that not fascinating?

The whole "Could god nuke a burrito so hot that he himself could not munch it?" (long gurgling bong hit)thing IS tired but the point of Sunday morning philosophizing of whatever flavor is that you get together with people you actually have time for and discuss the common pattern of beliefs that are relevant to your lives (duh.)

If the circumstances of an Atheist's life shields them from ever having to make a decision weightier than ‘where shall we have lunch’ then congratulations (I guess.) But they can't be offended when the world fails to line up at their door to partake of their philosophy; they don’t have one.

martin, I think you've got the decision thing backwards. In my experience, atheists have always taken a great deal of time to consider the big picture possibilities and make a purposeful decision about what they believe.

While I'm not saying that there aren't some relgious types out there who have questioned the existence of god or the doctorine they were brought up with, I think they are far fewer than the atheists you will meet. They're the ones who only have to decide where to go for lunch, because the really big decisions are already made for them.

moreta you certainly might be right but it would involve a bigger generalization than I'm willing to make.

From the personal experience files, most of the self-described Atheists I've met have been 18-25 and didn't know fuck-all about life but KNEW nobody was going to make THEM sit in church on Sunday.

In my opinion, the reason atheists don't have Sunday socials is that atheism is not a religion. I've never felt the need to meet up with my co-nonreligionists and work out what God isn't thinking this week.

Rob -

I don't know, it sounds good to me, as long as it's the right god who's lack of thought your working out...

Martin -

But they can't be offended when the world fails to line up at their door to partake of their philosophy; they don’t have one.

What philosophy? I think you're seriously missing the point, Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. This is not a philosophy, though it is arguably a philosophical position.

DuWayne,
You say I'm missing the point but the rest of your comment doesn't really drive it home so much as support what I've been saying.

"[P]hilosophical position" seems like a distinction without a difference but I'll take it. It's what a person relies on when they have to make a hard decision or the common ground two people might use to discuss intangibles. (Are we bogged down in semantics yet?)

Madalyn Murray O’Hair was an outspoken atheist. Her belief system shaped her life, guided her decisions about who to associate with and where to direct her efforts. Her belief system extended beyond her living years in that she expressed an interest in what became of her remains and how she was remembered and by whom.

It was "arguably a philosophical position" but one so devoid of anything that would support a happy and pleasant life that it could only be called nihilism. O'Hair (sic) was surrounded by angry, frightened people. In the end, it was those she deemed her enemies who brought her murderers to justice and observed the spirit of her wishes about the treatment of her remains.

There is a minor law of veterinary science that you don't worry about the ones you can't catch. There are people walking around who are sure they have all the answers and are equally sure that they themselves are the ones who figured "it" out. No one is going to "evangelize" these people and the effort would be unpleasant for all involved. But if these same people expect to be held in high regard (a fundamental human need) they will be regularly disappointed and confused as to why they are not universally loved and admired. These feelings of disappointment are easily transferred into notions of persecution.

The commonalities are everywhere. People aren't nearly as complex as we like to think and we tend to build the same organizations over and over, tearing them down and replacing them sometimes in the same generation. I think if you can find a manageably sized group of people to share casseroles and talk about the best way to raise children and keep basements dry and why you shouldn't strangle your boss, you should be happy about that and not try to make more of it (or less) than what it is.

Martin- The three properties of the hypothetical supreme being: omniscient, omnipotent and beneficent allow (maddeningly) for our instruments to be befuddled when it comes to weighing and measuring god and testing her electrical conductivity. If she's there, she couldn't not be there; if she's not there, she has to not be there. Gather friends in comfortable surroundings, serve "refreshments," discuss.

These are tricky properties, because it is not even clear whether they are logically possible. Why did you leave out omnipresence? It's quite simple in comparison.

The claim is that god is omnipresent. So create a vacuum. Is god in it or not?

Gravity is interesting as gravity and other fields do permeate the vacuum, even though there's no matter in it. So if god exists, s/he is a field - is that what you are saying? And not just any old field but one that has definite effects: a field that causes hurricanes in response to homosexuality, and ignores requests to replace amputated limbs. Well, that last is just like all other fields we know, so there's really nothing there to explain. But the first one? Does it obey the inverse square law? How does it relate to the strong nuclear force? Lots of interesting, if facetious, questions. Unfortunately I don't think any theologist claims that god is a field.

A large chunk of The God Delusion is spent explaining that the existence of god is perfectly testable, based on the claims of the faithful. The tests always fail, however, so the faithful denigrate the tests. Just as homeopaths and quacks of all persuasions deny that their particular delusion can be tested. They can be tested; they fail the tests.

Norman, you are investing a lot of energy in trying to prove exactly how many angels could not dance on the head of a pin.

Notions of the transcendent are all very personal; people who do not agree on the definitions and properties of the things in question will get nowhere in trying to change those notions.

In keeping with the subject of the post, my contention is that if a middle of the road Lutheran stumbled into the Sunday Atheists pancake breakfast without reading the sign, it might take him a few cups of coffee from the big electric urn to realize his mistake and vice versa the Atheist. Few stereotypes survive three minutes of conversation.

My point exactly, Martin. No philosophy, simply an absence (it is no more a lack than a disbelief in Santa Claus and I refuse to fall into step with this belief or a lack thereof nonsense) of belief in a deity of any kind. God, by definition, cannot exist unless you define him/her/it/they by something that shouldn't rightly be called god because if it's not superior, it's merely another being and doesn't deserve the title.

As for your stereotyping, I turn 50 in a few months and it took me 10 years to overcome by childhood indoctrination. I went from Christian to Jewish to Agnostic to Atheist and it all started with reading the St. James Bible (and then the New English) bible in a sincere effort to get closer to a God I did believe in and understand him better. LOL! That definitely didn't work. But that is one hell of a lot of thinking, not rebelling. I was Christian for 17 years, then I stopped believing in Jesus was the Messiah and pretty much believed in Judaism but didn't get around to seeking conversion until 23 and then didn't go through with it when I met my ex-husband who was a WASP Baptist followed by what in hindsight I call four years of Agnostism wherein I refused to face the issue shrugging my shoulders and saying don't know, don't care at the end of which I found the courage to admit I didn't believe. That was at 27. I'm 49. So that's 22 years of Atheism, preceded by 4 Agnostic for a total of 26 years of irreligion. I think by disbelief is sticking and a bit more than a passing youthful fad.

Donna,
You claim an absense of a philosophy but put forth substantial effort (and some indignation) defending this...lack.

Your protestations reveal that you have a personal value system, a sense of right and wrong that is important enough to you to tap out a message to some anonymous wingnut on the internet.

We seem to be discussing values in common terms, you and I. Add sandwiches and some bingo cards and we could claim tax-free status.

And with due respect to your silv'ry hair dear lady, (I'm 42) descriptions of personal experience aren't stereotyping.

Personal value system is just that -- personal. My philosophy if you want to call it that is that all it takes to figure out doing good things makes the world a better place and doing bad things makes the world a worse place is common sense. And, personally, I don't believe we're obligated to do either. Doing nothing doesn't change the world for either better or worse so I've no judgment against those who don't "help" out.

Again, it's no lack! You can't lack something that doesn't exist. I lack God -- you lack (I'm guessing, please, tell me if I'm wrong) a belief in elves or unicorns. Same difference. I can't stop you from believing this "lack" and, if I spend a lot of time "defending" it, uh, could it be because of the hypocrites that judge me for not believing in their imaginary friend in the sky? And I do mean hypocrites, make no mistake about, since they are more blamphemous than I when they are supposed to leave that judgement in someone else's hands and, frankly, acting in his stead seems to show a horrible "lack" of faith.

As for thinking you were stereotyping Atheists, I was referring to this: "most of the self-described Atheists I've met have been 18-25 and didn't know fuck-all about life but KNEW nobody was going to make THEM sit in church on Sunday." Pardon me. I didn't realize that you so thoroughly avoided unbelievers that you personally know only "rebellious" teens and young adults of that persuasion.

Good site. Thanks!
http://www.nuc.edu.ng/forum/forum_posts.asp?tid=1500 buy lamictal online

Good site. Thanks!
http://www.nuc.edu.ng/forum/forum_posts.asp?tid=1500 buy lamictal online