View Full Version : Who are your favourite proponents of atheism?
Mike Dogg
2006-03-01, 05:25
My favourite atheist to listen to in debates and whose articles I enjoy reading the most would have to be Dan Barker. He founded The Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/) after changing his beliefs from fundamentalist preacher to atheist. On these links he has a radio interview (http://www.freethoughtassociation.com/barker.mp3) with Neil Dionne, discusses religion with preacher Jason Gastrich (http://exchristian.net/dan_jason.mp3) (actually he completely owns him), he debates Bob Osburn about whether religion benefits society here (http://maclaurin.org/mp3s/does_religion_benefit_society__part_i.mp3) and here (http://maclaurin.org/mp3s/does_religion_benefit_society__ii.mp3), and he also debates Phil Fernandes here (http://mp3.sermonaudio.com/media/102703235448/102703235448.mp3). He's charismatic, intelligent, entertaining and rationally minded.
Next would have to be Reginald Finley. He's been doing (and still does) regular radio shows that you can hear over at InfidelGuy.com (http://www.infidelguy.com) and Freethoughtmedia.com. (http://www.freethoughtmedia.com) He's got hundreds of hours worth of them archived, and although you have to pay to have full access to the archives, it's totally worth it if you want to hear him interviewing people like Richard Dawkins (http://www.infidelguy.com/mp3/infidelguy.com_Tape340_Richard_Dawkins.mp3) and discussing philosophy with anyone and everyone in the arena of metaphysics. You can listen to some of his shows for free here (http://www.podcast.net/show/28114) and here (http://tinyurl.com/7ewzj). He's definitely very charismatic and entertaining, and doesn't bore you with overcomplicated diatribe.
Then there's James Randi (http://www.randi.org). He's a skeptic who puts his money where his mouth is -- prove something supernatural exists and win $1,000,000. You can listen to him explaining it to everyone's favourite bumbling apologist Jason Gastrich (the one Dan Barker owned) here (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5603184726).
Okay, those are mine. Does anyone else have favourite atheist debaters and commentators?
[This message has been edited by Mike Dogg (edited 03-01-2006).]
Lance Armstrong. An incredible man.
Real.PUA
2006-03-01, 07:57
Good post.
Richard Dawkins - he just kicks ass. No list of atheists could be complete with out him.
Sam Harris(http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/television/)
-He takes science, philosophy, and religion itself to tear faith apart. Quite a remarkable man. Watch him take on Bill oreilly (gotta know your stuff to get the best of oreilly), some bitch sitting in for scarborough (really a complete idiot) and some guy on PAX (crumbles under the pressure and resorts to personal insults). He's also got some radio interviews which I havent listened too.
[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-01-2006).]
wow That's completely amazing! I listened to his 1st interview and was completely blown away.
Mellow_Fellow
2006-03-02, 00:09
Neitzsche pwns all.
dawkins has shitty logic at times, you can't beat religion through his methods, that only makes it stronger. Even so i do agree with him quite often.
relion's just like the hydra, eh?
There are lots of great atheists i know, but then i know lots of cool theists as well (not christians though, they fucking suck).
cannabis being a gift from God is more believable than the entire of the theories presented in the books of the 3 main monotheistic religions...
[This message has been edited by Mellow_Fellow (edited 03-02-2006).]
Kallisti
2006-03-02, 01:43
Penn Jillette, the talking half of the Penn and Teller magic act. Here's why:
THERE IS NO GOD
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.
But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."
Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.
bombtrack
2006-03-09, 18:38
Richard Dawkins
hyroglyphx
2006-03-09, 18:41
So Penn is a strong atheist, according to what some atheists have invented. Since he beyond 'believing' the burden of proof is on him to prove that God doesn't exist.
[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 03-09-2006).]
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
So Penn is a strong atheist, according to what some atheists have invented. Since he beyond 'believing' the burden of proof is on him to prove that God doesn't exist.
And vise versa...
Not even that. To put a burden of proof on someone one has to provide manners in which it could be fulfilled. It would be unreasonable and dishonest to put a burden of proof on someone when it is impossible for them to fulfill.
So hyro must provide a way that Penn could refute the existence of a god. I'd love to hear how hyro could come up with a way of refuting the existence of a being that must have the power to evade all forms of detection, by definition.
Surf_Bum
2006-03-10, 05:12
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
...the burden of proof is on him to prove that God doesn't exist.
That's absurd... you're essentially saying a sensible approach is to believe whatever speculations your fellow man puts forth until definitely proven wrong (which, in practical terms, is rarely if ever possible.) If you really believe that (which you surely don't, aside for the sake of "God" arguments) you'd be penniless and live a life of misery, being cannon fodder to con artists and malarkey spewers of every shape and variety.
hyroglyphx
2006-03-10, 05:17
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
Not even that. To put a burden of proof on someone one has to provide manners in which it could be fulfilled. It would be unreasonable and dishonest to put a burden of proof on someone when it is impossible for them to fulfill.
So hyro must provide a way that Penn could refute the existence of a god. I'd love to hear how hyro could come up with a way of refuting the existence of a being that must have the power to evade all forms of detection, by definition.
By your own omission, you gave me the break down on 'strong' and 'weak' atheism. Penn, tacitly implies that 'believing' that God does not exists simply does not suffice. So, the alternative would be? Now you are defending him and his answer, even though you broke it down for us so eloquently that to be a strong atheist is an impossible act. So which is?
Surf_Bum
2006-03-10, 05:32
quote:Originally posted by Kallisti:
Penn Jillette, the talking half of the Penn and Teller magic act. Here's why:
THERE IS NO GOD...
Good rant. The thing about atheism is that it's counter to mainstream politics (and our culture in general, if only in word) and I think many high-profile public figures(journalists, entertainers [including sports figures], politicians, those who've attained some sort of celebrity or are otherwise well-known) that are atheists (agnostics, take your pick... in practice there really isn't a difference) "keep their mouths shut" because their livelihoods depend upon public opinion. Scientists have been traditionally vocal as atheists because in large part that doesn't apply to them.
Along with Randii who's been a notable exception to the rule and was mentioned,
as for people who've shown courage, honesty, and done a great job in taking on the unpopular task of representing the atheist cause, I thought (the deceased) Carl Sagan's writings of recent years included some of the most readable, immenently rational, and inescapably sensible writings on "Why it's OK not to believe."
Digital_Savior
2006-03-10, 07:01
Why is this being posted in the religion forum, if ATHEISM ISN'T A RELIGION ?
Inquiring minds want to know !
Surf_Bum
2006-03-10, 07:55
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Why is this being posted in the religion forum, if ATHEISM ISN'T A RELIGION ?
Inquiring minds want to know !
Question involves assessments and viewpoints relevant to religion. If TOTSE qualifies a thread or column with "For posts by the non-secular minded only" I'll post elsewhere. Otherwise... ask and thou shall receive.
Real.PUA
2006-03-10, 07:55
quote:My God Can Beat the Shit Out of Your God
For discussing any and all religious viewpoints. Intolerance will not be tolerated. Keeping your sense of humor is required. Posting messages about theological paradoxes is encouraged.
...But it's good to see you finally admit atheism is not a religion. It is, however, related to religious viewpoints.
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
By your own omission, you gave me the break down on 'strong' and 'weak' atheism. Penn, tacitly implies that 'believing' that God does not exists simply does not suffice. So, the alternative would be? Now you are defending him and his answer, even though you broke it down for us so eloquently that to be a strong atheist is an impossible act. So which is?
1. No, read it again. He implies that "not believing in god" does not suffice (that weak-atheism isn't enough according to him), so he has opted for believing god doesn't exist (strong atheism).
2. I'm not defending his answer, nor am I saying strong atheism is "an impossible act". I'm attacking the idea that you can honestly and reasonably put a burden of proof on him. Judging by how you evaded that part of my post, it seems you can't.
P.S. Going to answer me in 'I honestly want to know..'? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-10-2006).]
TerminatorVinitiatoR
2006-03-10, 12:40
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Why is this being posted in the religion forum, if ATHEISM ISN'T A RELIGION ?
Inquiring minds want to know !
call it what you want, it still canes the fuck out of christianity.
ps. Dawkins is da man, read the blind watchmaker and climbing mount improbable.
Surf_Bum
2006-03-10, 19:30
quote:Originally posted by iSoape:
Lance Armstrong. An incredible man.
Yeah, I forgot to add, I didn't know anything about his (non)religious views, but Lance is definitely The Man. I saw lately the French were raising some questions about some frozen urine or blood sample that assayed as positive for something banned some months ago... I don't know what came of that, but realistically, at that level of competition, I'm not sure all of the top guys don't use some sort of banned stuff or another during training, whether they can circumvent the tests, or not. Just like top-rung competition in many other sports (bodybuilders and weightlifters no longer try to deny the obvious) unfortunately, that's just the way it is.
Mike Dogg
2006-03-11, 02:08
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Why is this being posted in the religion forum, if ATHEISM ISN'T A RELIGION ?
Inquiring minds want to know !
Well, Dan Barker has this to say to people who claim atheism is a religion:
If any system of human morality, philosophy or common purpose can be called a "religion," then the word does not mean anything. Stamp collecting might someday be a religion. Or potty training.
Most people understand the word "religion" to refer to a collection of beliefs and practices connected to a claim of transcendence: there is something, or someone, "out there" to give us direction and meaning--an overriding cosmic principle or personality. Secular humanism makes no such claim, and therefore is not really a religion. (There's the old joke that if atheism is a religion then baldness is a hair color.)
Of course, as some might do with the word "infidel," others might try to broaden the word "religion" beyond what has been historically understood. But good luck. To my mind, the word "religion" seems stuck to the supernatural. And since we already have perfectly good natural terms for secular philosophies and moralities, why make things needlessly ambiguous with such a loaded term as "religion"?
Atheism is just as boring as any other religion. Listen to anyone of these guys ramble on and on, is at least as boring as listening to any preacher talk about scriptures and personal meetings with god.
God is just a word. If you take god to mean oce thing, then no he doesn't exist. Defined in a different way, Say as the collective consiousness of life and matter and it interactions through the laws of physics then maybe he("he" funny) does exist.
TerminatorVinitiatoR
2006-03-14, 11:28
no, you're boring. ^
wow three days before this reply. did I cause you a deep pseudo-religous chrisis that resulted in you going into a 72 hour coma until Dawkins finally came to you in a dream, leading to this ultimate enlightenment.
Elephantitis Man
2006-03-14, 17:08
quote:Originally posted by Kune:
Defined in a different way, Say as the collective consiousness of life and matter and it interactions through the laws of physics then maybe he("he" funny) does exist.
That's called 'pantheism'.
TerminatorVinitiatoR
2006-03-14, 18:00
quote:Originally posted by Kune:
wow three days before this reply. did I cause you a deep pseudo-religous chrisis that resulted in you going into a 72 hour coma until Dawkins finally came to you in a dream, leading to this ultimate enlightenment.
no, but i only criticise thing that i know something about, it's obvious you havn't read any of his books, since you only hear him "droning on and on" you short-attention-span twat.
theBishop
2006-03-14, 18:23
Douglas Adams.
quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:
Originally posted by Kune:
Defined in a different way, Say as the collective consiousness of life and matter and it interactions through the laws of physics then maybe he("he" funny) does exist.
That's called 'pantheism'.
geezus dangcrapflic*^/f**$@!!!$*&~!
do they have to give everything a name.
quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:
no, but i only criticise thing that i know something about, it's obvious you havn't read any of his books, since you only hear him "droning on and on" you short-attention-span twat.
I know that Dawkins would get in arguments with Creationists, until his friend told him that he was just fueling their fire, something he should have realized a long time ago if he wasn't caught up in the trip.
That he aggressively campaign's against religion citing september 11th as a reason why Islam is so awful, as if atheist's are such good people. I agree with most of what he says. I'm a humanist(i guess, i hate labels) and I'm currently doing a science degree, I even agree with some of his more out there I ideas like giving certain animal rights similar to humans. If a lion kills a man throw it in a zoo, if a man kills a lion throw him in prison. He's a very great and intelligent man and his arrogance is also very great.
And by the way, I know personal insults are pretty common on this forum, and they have their place. Just try to respond with something different this time.
religion is important to alot of really good people. I'm not going to piss all over them for it.
Real.PUA
2006-03-15, 05:58
Well, Kune, if people didn't believe that God wrote a book we wouldn't be having these problems with all muslims today. September 11th is a perfect of example of what faith can cause--senseless violence.
Faith (belief without evidence) is rarely, if ever, positive. And in situations where it might be positive a non-fath alternative could do the job. I don't care if people's 1st century barbaric beliefs are important too them, their beliefs directly affect the world we live in and their beliefs have no evidentiary support.
Faith must be exposed for what it is (irrationality), because if it continues to go unchecked int his age of nuclear and other weapons of mass destructions, something terrible WILL happen. There are people with scientific/engineering educations that could put together a nuclear bomb, yet they still havent been told the tooth fairy is fake. They are willing to kill you and your family in the name of the tooth fairy, because it is their ticket to heaven. Is this not a scary situation?
Sure lots of monstrous things have been done in the name of religion, but how can you prove that it's because of religion that these things happened.
As far as I'm concerned it's predjudice and politics not religion that's behind these atrocities. Did America invading Cuba have any thing to do with religion, vietnam, the millions of people killed in Laos when the airforce was coming back from it's bombing runs just so they could kill some gooks and not have to land with there bombs.
Predjudice is the major problem, predjudice against anyone for any reason. Whether it be their race, skin color, secular beliefs, or religous beliefs. If we can show muslims countries that we're no longer going to exploit them for their resources, and force our own people as their leaders they will start to relax.
September 11th's like a drop in the bucket compared to the people who've died all over the world fighting against our empire.
[This message has been edited by Kune (edited 03-15-2006).]
Adrenochrome
2006-03-15, 13:00
My favourite proponent of atheism is Jean-Paul Sartre, the existentialist.
quote:Originally posted by Kune:
Sure lots of monstrous things have been done in the name of religion, but how can you prove that it's because of religion that these things happened.
As far as I'm concerned it's politics not religion that's behind these atrocities. Did America invading Cuba have any thing to do with religion, vietnam, the millions of people killed in Laos when the airforce was coming back from it's bombing runs just so they could kill some gooks and not have to land with there bombs.
When people say that religion can cause suffering, hatred, death, and/or wars, they do not claim that all instances of those occurrences must have been caused by religion, but only that some have. Therefore, mentioning political or economical reasons for the cause of suffering and the like, doesn't really refute the premise, it only serves as examples of other causes.
quote:
Predjudice is the major problem, predjudice against anyone for any reason. Whether it be their race, skin color, secular beliefs, or religous beliefs.
No. We should be prejudiced against illogical and idiotic beliefs systems that are unnecessary, and that - at the very least - can serve as a cause or catalyst of atrocities.
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
No. We should be prejudiced against illogical and idiotic beliefs systems that are unnecessary, and that - at the very least - can serve as a cause or catalyst of atrocities.
If you've prejudged a belief how do you know that it's illogical, idiotic, and unnecessary.
As for religions being the cause of certain atrocities, I don't deny it, but first name me an example and will go from there.
Fat Penis
2006-03-17, 07:19
i don't really have one.
Digital_Savior
2006-03-17, 10:05
quote:Originally posted by Surf_Bum:
Question involves assessments and viewpoints relevant to religion. If TOTSE qualifies a thread or column with "For posts by the non-secular minded only" I'll post elsewhere. Otherwise... ask and thou shall receive.
You missed the point entirely.
I happen to believe that Atheism is a religion, and I was making a joke to that effect. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)
Digital_Savior
2006-03-17, 10:09
quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:
no, but i only criticise thing that i know something about
Let's see...you argue politics and religion...
Where have you exhibited this restraint from criticizing things you don't understand ?
TerminatorVinitiatoR
2006-03-17, 13:22
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Let's see...you argue politics and religion...
Where have you exhibited this restraint from criticizing things you don't understand ?
is there a book called "politics" and a book called "religion"? have you read them? so you know everything there is to know about the human condition then? obviously not because you are plainly an arch christian-fascist.
quote:Originally posted by Kune:
If you've prejudged a belief how do you know that it's illogical, idiotic, and unnecessary.
You don't. What I said necessitates that I find it illogical, idiotic and unnecessary first, and then have prejudicial feelings for that belief. That is, I don't arrive at the conclusion that they are illogical and unnecessary, "prejudicially".
quote:
As for religions being the cause of certain atrocities, I don't deny it, but first name me an example and will go from there.
The Crusades serve as good example. Though behind them there was also political/economic motivations, there was undeniably religious undertones, and they would have never had such effect had there not been the support and outright promotion of them by the Church.
great_sage=heaven
2006-03-19, 07:16
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Why is this being posted in the religion forum, if ATHEISM ISN'T A RELIGION ?
Inquiring minds want to know !
Because atheism addresses the possibility of god, obviously it should be in this forum.
Do you realize how dumb it would be to go to another forum every time someone wanted to post about how god doesn't exist?
Real.PUA
2006-03-19, 07:54
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
You missed the point entirely.
I happen to believe that Atheism is a religion, and I was making a joke to that effect. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)
Lacking belief in a diety is a religion?
Surf_Bum
2006-03-19, 09:00
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
You missed the point entirely.
I happen to believe that Atheism is a religion, and I was making a joke to that effect. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)
Ah... I getcha.
I think im my favorite atheist cause i was sent to a jewish school (jewish family) and it was all bullshit, and i became a little rebel. I try my best to contradict my teachers. In a presentation i once said, if god commands us not to murder in the 10 commandments, then why di he tell us to kill every woman baby, child, man, and even animal of the Amalek nation? I still dont have an answer.
TerminatorVinitiatoR
2006-03-21, 05:22
quote:Originally posted by CBUM:
I think im my favorite atheist cause i was sent to a jewish school (jewish family) and it was all bullshit, and i became a little rebel. I try my best to contradict my teachers. In a presentation i once said, if god commands us not to murder in the 10 commandments, then why di he tell us to kill every woman baby, child, man, and even animal of the Amalek nation? I still dont have an answer.
you know, i read that in the voice of woody allen.
oy vey.
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
The Crusades serve as good example. Though behind them there was also political/economic motivations, there was undeniably religious undertones, and they would have never had such effect had there not been the support and outright promotion of them by the Church.
Then I guess there's no point in going further into that if you agree with the political/economic motivations thing.
Really my point is that people can get caught up in all sorts off different ideas and groups leading to detrimental effects on people and the human race as a whole.
Look at Drug and drinking culture, my friend drunk himself to death two weeks ago, and I have about twenty other people who I've known since they were kids on the same path, all secular people but still hurting themselves with a belief system and values that hurt them in the long run. Aren't they too being controled and manipulated just as organized religion has been and will continue to be a way to control people. Unfortunatly religion doesn't account for more then a small fraction of the way people are influenced for the goals of power mongers.
I just read today that more money is spent in bars in New York in two weeks then is spent on biological research in America for the entire year. Mankind is so dis-organized at doing anything positive, is the only thing we can come together on complaining and telling other people how stupid and used they are? we're all fucking retarded.
Surf_Bum
2006-03-21, 08:27
quote:Originally posted by Kune:
...Look at Drug and drinking culture, my friend drunk himself to death two weeks ago, and I have about twenty other people who I've known since they were kids on the same path, all secular people but still hurting themselves with a belief system...
I'm sorry to hear of your friends death as such, and if this person were young, this makes losses like that the more tragic and pointless, but I'm not sure to what extent a belief system is the cause, as opposed to the participants being people who are individually troubled, with their inner pain inevitably expressed in that way, as opposed to another. Maybe in some cases, an otherwise focused and well-adjusted person may have a heavy biological propensity towards addiction to cocaine (for example), become heavily addicted through exposure to the "Drug/Alcohol Culture" and consequently have their life spiral (as Michael Douglas' daughter depicted in the interesting movie "Traffik"). But I think those cases might be "an exception to the rule". Abusable drugs (including alcohol) are "a faqct of life"- they are, and always have been readily available to those seeking relief from their inner torment. I think most people who severely abuse these substances do so because they are very deeply troubled. If they didn't abuse them in the company of others, they would do so alone.
Often, if it wasn't one substance, it would be another. I had a friend who was a heroin addict and cocaine user when I knew him 5 years ago. At that time- despite his addiction- he was physically trim, his mind was sharp, and he was candid and interesting to speak with. I saw him (for the first time since then) a year ago- he had since quit using heroin and cocaine, and just drank a couple of quarts of beer each day to cope. I couldn't believe how bad he looked- he'd bloated from maybe 150 to over 200 pounds, he looked like he'd aged 15 years, and he looked like hell. Worse yet, he sounded like an angry, babbling fool. It was saddening.
If those drugs were holding him together, he would have been better off staying on them.
My friend and your's are examples of an extreme in a far reaching trend. Do you know anyone over 20 who hasn't passed out or gotten sick from binge drinking. I've seen people on the news argue that people who quit heroin are losers because they coulcn't keep it together; my ex-girlfriend and I got in an argument once because she argued that being a heroin addict was a good life choice, since it makes you feel good and it isn't harming anyone, i obviously disagreed. She actual accused me of not looking at it objectivly, which was utter bullshit since we were both frequent drug users at the time.
People believing this in my opinion are caught up in an idea which is extremely popular at the moment, but really only leads to self destruction.
atomsphere
2006-03-22, 05:44
I can fly and shoot laser beams from my eyes. you can refrute it all you want but it is your responsibility to disprove my powers
"invisible pink elephant"