Recently there was a study that found that there were six types of atheists. Apparently, a disbelief in the supernatural is not a monolithic belief system, held in equal measure by all atheists. Actually, anecdotally, I think we would all say that was somewhat true, though it’s nice to have it confirmed. I often find myself in disagreement with other atheists about matters I would expect to agree on, based on the fact that I know how I arrived at my atheism, and assume that their path to disbelief was at least similar. But, lo, it turns out that doesn’t really work out in real life.
I was reminded of this by a discussion I had recently on Facebook. As I said, I sort of expect other atheists to think like me, so I’m a tad bit surprised when they don’t.
Well, technically, that’s not true. What I’m trying to say is that atheism is just one small component of what I am, what describes my worldview, my personal philosophy, my attitude towards life and how I now choose to live it. A better word, one more encompassing, though a bit verbose, would be ASUPERNATURALIST. I don’t believe in the idea, the concept of the supernatural.
Welcome back, it’s a brand new year, but as usual when it comes to religion, everything old becomes new again. Religion is a meme, and as such without any conscious thought or intention, it continues to work feverishly to maintain its existence.
It’s not a “god particle”. It’s simply a building block of all matter. The Higgs Boson. Why does the media feel the need to dumb their coverage down for the masses by equating everything to a religious metaphor?
You know that all the ignoramuses out there are going to read this and think “See? The purpose of science is to prove the existence of god. That’s what science is all about.”
Actually, a better way of stating that would be that eventually there will be no religion. When that happens, while technically we’ll all be atheists, we won’t need to differentiate between theist and atheist, so there will be no Atheism either. Here’s why:
I saw this on Pharyngula, and thought that certain troll-like commenters here might find it enlightening. It fits in nicely with discussion we were having in some of the past posts about ignoring evidence, the Bible, and all the other willful ignorance they like to espouse.
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! It will shake your religious preconceptions, but only if you have an open mind.
Ten to one they won’t watch it beyond the first minute.
Google Reader is a great little service. I have some of my favorite blogs registered there, so that I don’t miss new posts when they are written. I have a few theist blogs that I monitor, and occasionally comment on, because, well, it good to keep track of the “other side”, so to speak.
The Wall Street Journal asked two authors to respond to the question “Where does evolution leave god?” Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins were those two authors. I suspect that the Dawkins response is culled from his upcoming book, “The Greatest Show On Earth“, being published later this month. Since I generally agree with Dawkins’ take on Evolution, and how it affects the concept of god, I’ll comment on his response only peripherally. However, Karen Armstrong’s’ response evokes a response from me. I’m not sure I completely follow her thoughts, so I will try to do so here, and come to some conclusion at the end.
We spend a lot of time here on the Atheosphere debating the fine nuances between the religious worldview and the atheist worldview. From our Point of View, the religious just don’t have a clue, and they think the same of us. We think that a rational, skeptical, humanistic, evidence-based way of grasping reality is the way to go, or as my grandmother used to say, the cat’s pajamas. Theists think that having faith, blind or otherwise, in an unseen and unknowable supernatural entity is also the equivalent of wearing sleepwear manufactured for members of the feline persuasion. In effect, we are debating opposing views of reality.