0
Atheism
Atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1,002 Questions
Which moral theory focuses mainly on an act being universalizable?
The first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
How many missing links are there in evolution?
First of all, let me explain why the term 'missing link' is inaccurate and misleading. It suggests that there is something wanting from the fossil record, where it really isn't. Some intermediates have been projected but have not yet been found; however, hundreds of transistional fossils have been found without having been projected, nevertheless confirming phylogenies established on the basis of morphology alone. And, of course, some intermediates have been specifically projected and subsequently found.
The definition of 'transitional fossil' is any form that is morphologically intermediate between the basal form of a clade, and a more derived form within that clade. Since the number of morphological intermediates between one ancestral form and its remote descendants is potentially as high as the number of generations between these two forms, it's virtually impossible to project how many intermediate forms we should expect to find even in a single lineage. Moreover, evolution is not a linear or well-ordered process, but a chaotic one, which complicates such deliberations.
In the end, the question itself is irrelevant to our determinations, since however many transitional fossils remain missing, every fossil that we do find confirms common descent and helps clarify various phylogenies.
No, J.K. Rowling is a member of the Church of Scotland. However, she stated on an episode of the Today Show that her books, particularly her seventh, did come into conflict with her beliefs and caused her some consternation.
As I recall, she was concerned with openly discussing her faith because it would have made the plot more obvious (book seven can be seen as a Christian allegory) not because the book was in "conflict" with her beliefs - she has always made it clear that the books are fantasy and she doesn't believe in magic - she doesn't believe the books are true.
Although non-belief dates back thousands of years, it was probably the Age of Enlightenment (in the eighteenth century) that started more widespread scepticism and the beginning of a secular society.
Scientific advances (particularly in geology, astronomy and biology) in the nineteenth century meant that more and more people - particularly scientists and philosophers were atheist. As education has improved through the twentieth century, atheism has also grown.
Why do some theists hate Richard Dawkins?
As a Christian I feel sadness and pity for Richard Dawkins and those who follow his views which are not well informed, particularly when he speaks about the Christian faith. Some fellow-atheists also do not regard Dawkins as well-informed. He is also inconsistent in terms of his philosophical position. On one hand he says 'that's just tough' when speaking about meaninglessness in the evolutionary/atheist position in regard to meaning and purpose in the universe and then on another occasion he states how sad it was in reference to a serious accident with a school bus. If the universe is ultimately meaningless and there is no God as Dawkins believes then he needs to be consistent to have credibility in terms of his position of meaninglessless and blind chance.
Dawkins intolerance of the position of others is also legendary. If his position is so watertight as he believes then one wonders why he attempts to silence other views and why he and his followers are so defensive. This inconsistency and intolerance (everyone has a right to my opinion) and his failure to recognize that his own position carries its own problems philosophically in terms of the ultimate meaningless of blind chance applying to Dawkins' own position itself. This inconsistency in terms of recognizing the problems with his own position rightly draw criticism from theists and atheists alike, as does his stated aim to 'kill religion.'
It also would be interesting for the presuppositions in the question to be substantiated in terms of actual evidence. People often fail to make a distinction between a profound disagreement of philosophical position as stated briefly above and a personal hatred. I totally disagree with Dawkins' position but I do not hate him. He is both misguided and inconsistent as is evident by what he says. His ignorance is also profound. Even on scientific matters some fellow scientists express concern about his position. While it is certainly correct to state that hatred is not at least a Christian theistic position, such is not a position that has any checks on it in terms of Dawkins' own position towards Christians. Certainly this brings various reactions from people. Some of the strongest criticism of Dawkins' position I have personally seen is from fellow-atheists who are concerned he will give atheism and science a bad name. Christian theists tend to ignore him in terms of credibility, since he is so blatantly intolerant and ignorant of the Christian position in so many areas.
Another answer:
By objectively evaluating such a situation, it is extremely plausible that certain theists who vehemently voice their stance on Richard Dawkins are either too afraid to hear the truth, be forced out of their comfort zone, and have to re-evaluate their meaning of their life and/or feel the need to be anti any intellect who has empirically decided to display opinions that are not in accordance with the norm. The majority of these few theists will probably also denounce any type of concept that is not within their understanding or belief system.
The following fallacies could also be relevant:
- Achilles heel: Finding a single fault in a system of concepts in order to condemn the whole system
- Argumentum ad hominem: Attacking a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument/claim
- Argumentum ad populum: Agreeing with the majority to conclude the correct truth of a proposition
There is a long history of atheist musicians--->of Beethoven, Berlioz, Bizet, Brahms, Debussy, Mozart, Paganini, Shubert, Schumann, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, and Wagner.
http://www.atheists.org/Atheist_Musicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_(music)
(Here is a very short, partial list, the list is endless.)
.1.The Beatles
2. Iron Maiden
3. Led Zeppelin
4. Judas Priest
5. Grateful Dead
6. Queen
7. Slayer
8. Metallica
9. GWAR
10. The Dresden Dolls
Ludwig Van Beethoven,
Crowded House,
Dire Straights,
Ani Difranco,
Liam and Noel Gallagher(oasis),
Bob geldof,
Shirley Manson(Garbage),
Sarah mclachlan,
Barry Manilow,
Billy joel,
Mozart,
Boys from Foo fighters
Johannes Brahms
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Niccolo Paganini
Guissepe Verdi
Danny Elfman
Frank Zappa
Barry Manilow
Dave Mathews
John Lennon
Randy Newman
Emerson Lake and Palmer -
(although Palmer I believe is Christian) Lake is defiantly atheist, just listen to any song written by him. "I believed in Father Christmas
Pink Floyd
The Doors.
Sionead O'Conner
XTC
James
Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
Fleetwood Mac
There are also atheist musicians who write songs for atheists.
One of my alltime favorites, is the sentimental,
"White Wine in the Sun"--->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0s68-GLGWY
If THAT was what what you are looking for? there are 1000s of those, too, whose songs are writtenfor atheists.--->
http://atheistempire.com/entertainment/music_lyrics.php
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/12970
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=27661&start=25
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=370
http://www.atheistmind.com/tis-the-season-the-best-atheist-christmas-songs-for-your-listening-pleasure
I could add more links for lists of songs written FOR atheists, from now til midnite, but googles "songs FOR atheists" or "songs BY atheists" for more of these.
ENJOY!! MUSIC IS THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE!!!
Is religion correct or atheism?
If we knew that then there wouldn't be any religion or atheists, depending on the answer. However, some definitions might be useful:
Strong atheists are certain there is no god
Atheists believe there is no god but accept there is no certain proof.
Agnostics believe the question of the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved
Theists believe there is a god but accept there is no certain proof.
Strong theists are certain there is a god.
Most people who call themselves atheists are probably in the second group; Richard Dawkins, who may be the most famous living atheist, puts himself in this category. Most theists are probably in the 4th group - as the Bishop of Oxford said, "There's usually a mutual agreement between me and parishioners not to say what we actually believe; they think I'd be shocked and I think they'd be shocked."
Based on this, it's clear that the vast majority of people put themselves in the "not really sure" category.
The general idea of "cause", often referred to as "first cause", is that stuff doesn't come from nothing, so someone, (you know who), had to create, (cause), the universe. But it's a circular argument because then you have to ask, who created God?
The usual answer is, "God was always here." That's the end of the discussion because it seems that some people can imagine a supernatural being always existing, but not the universe, and/or whatever did, or didn't, come before that.
If you aren't prepared to accept the supernatural on faith alone, these old arguments, gussied up with some fancy science and philosophy jargon, simply don't hold water.
There is no such thing as "atheistic theory". There are general ideas and consensus among Atheists as to what Atheism is, but like any category that defines itself in opposition to another category, nothing else serves as a unifying principle other than the opposition.
For example, there are many types of video-game gamers, like FPS players, dancing-game players, adventure gamers, rhythm gamers, racing games, MMORPG players, etc. But if someone is not interested in video-games, this says nothing else about them other than that they do not like video-games. It does not even say why they do not like video-games (it could be moral opposition, simple distaste, a particular experience, pressure, etc.). This is the same with Atheism.
What is the symbol for being non-religious?
There is no symbol for being non-religious just like there are no team logos for folks who do not participate in sports. Some Atheist blogs use a red "A" on their site to advertise their position in responses etc.
Difference between theist atheist constructive vs destructive questioning of faith?
Theist=Believer Atheist=believes in no higher being at all. This is it-mindset. Constructive question means you question to get answers that would strenthen your faith. Destructive is quite the opposite.
If there is no oxygen on the moon then how does the man in the moon breathe?
By oxygen tanks - similar to SCUBA divers.
What do people think of Kent Hovind?
Oh, dude, Kent Hovind? He's like the Marmite of the science world - you either love him or you can't stand him. Some people think he's a genius, others think he's a total quack. It's like a never-ending debate with that guy.
What technique did Bertrand Russel use to bring home his point?
He used an analogy of a celestial teapot. It goes like this: imagine if I told you that there was a china teapot in orbit around the sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars, and that it is so small that our telescopes would not detect it. The point Russel wanted to make was that the notion of "you can't disprove God, therefore belief and the lack of it are equally valid." is meaningless. You would not be able to disprove the existence of this celestial teapot, but it would be absurd to think that believing in its existence is in the same league as being skeptical about it. We cannot disprove billions of things that we don't believe in, like the celestial teapot, tooth fairy, santa clause, or god. But we don't need to disprove them to not believe in them, rather we dont believe them because there isn't a shred of evidence in their favour. We technically have to be agnostics with respect to the celestial teapot, since we cannot be sure that it most certainly doesn't exist, but we are all in practice, a-teapotists.
Is The Agonist an Atheist Band?
There is no rock band called The Agonist, but two bands called The Agony- one an American all-male band and the other a Czech all-female one. The American rock band The Agony all began as devout Christians, but gradually came to question organised religion, beginning with lead vocalist Rod Burguiere and then spreading to the rest of the group. Since 2002 they have moved away from Christianity and become more secular, but that does not mean that they have no SPIRITUAL beliefs. The Czech rock band's religious views are not known, but there's nothing to suggest that they are atheist.
Who said I don't have enough faith to be an atheist?
It is a book written by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. It is a book of Christian apologetics, or defending the faith.
How many people were atheist in 1901?
On a percentage basis the number of atheists was probably the same in 1901 aas it is now, however many were probably "closet" atheists and afraid to face public scorn for their position. This is similar to the number of pacifists in World War 1 who were shunned for not supporting the war. "God and COutry" were seen as a righteous thing back then.
How will you answer the The Euthyphro Dilemma?
"Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"
About 15% of the world's population is atheist, agnostic or non-religious. We're everywhere. Many European countries have populations that are nontheist. China is officially nontheist (although there is a sizeable religious population).
In North America about 20% of Canadians (according to the latest census) are not religious.
So the anwer as to where atheists live is anywhere you might think of. Atheists can go anywhere and see anything as well as any other can.
Anywhere and everywhere.
How do you have an atheist wedding?
By getting married by the Justice of the Peace.
Answer:
The "official" wedding to get the paperwork in order can be done any time ahead of the wedding party by a JP but then a public ceremony can be held anyway you want - friends to officiate, promised to exchange and food and drink for after.
What atheist was instrumental in stopping prayer in public schools in the United States?
Madalyn Murray brought a case against her son's school, which reached the Supreme Court, and she made a very eloquent speech in favour of atheism. However, her's was not the only case; there was also a case brought by Edward Schempp, who was a Unitarian Universalist.
Why did humanist believe that rhetoric was an important skill?
They wanted their scholars to convince others to follow a path of virtue and wisdom.
