I'm so fed up with all the definitions of "atheist" that are out there. Let me give everyone the ultimate definition, and you can reword it all you want:
An atheist is someone who answers the question "DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?" with a NO!
Edit: Thanks to a comment I received, I'll ask the same question in slightly different words: Do you believe that an all knowing eternal supernatural being exists? If the answer is NO, you are an atheist.
That is it. That answer doesn't require dogma or a religion or any foundation whatsoever.
OK, so what is an agnostic?, you might ask. We are all really freakin agnostics. An agnostic is someone who isn't 100% sure that God exists. Nobody can be 100% sure that God doesn't exist, and those who say they are 100% sure God exists, are liars.
You know what, let me re-examine my last statement. There are those who are 100% sure that God exists because they are extremely brainwashed, and/or they have totally convinced themselves. If they were given a lie detector test, they would answer they are 100% sure that God exists, and the reading of the test would confirm in many cases that they were not lying.
Now I know there are atheists who say they know 100% for sure God doesn't exist (I'm only 99.99999% because I know it is impossible to know for sure). I'm not sure how a lie detector test would come out for these 100% atheists.
Now back to my main point. The question "do you believe in God?" What if you answer the question "sometimes" ? Well, that would make an atheist sometimes and a theist sometimes. What if you answer "I don't know." I think it is a fair answer, and that would put in the pure agnostic category.
Why is the answer fair? If someone asks you if your spouse has ever cheated on you (assuming they never admitted it), you might answer "I don't know." You may feel stronger about a yes or no, but you sincerely may believe "I don't know."
Atheists like myself like to explain myself as to what it means to me to be an atheist, though it is not required by my universal definition.
For instance, I will qualify my answer. I see absolutely no evidence that any God exists. To me, the world and universe makes perfect sense without a God. But I can't say God doesn't exist for sure, just like I can't say Leprechauns don't exist. The same evidence exists for both Leprechauns and God, though.
April 26, 2009
And The Winner Of Youtube's Pwnage Olympics Is...
In case you didn't know, there has been a Youtube contest going on for the last month or so where contestants were to destroy the "arguments" of creationists or just plain theists. The winner is a Canadian chick (FactVsReligion). Unfortunately for Canadians, the person she went after the most, is one of the most ridiculous Canadians ever (VenomFangX). Here is the winning video:
April 23, 2009
We, As Individual Humans, Really Are Flukes
I really hate the creationist argument that uses the idea of odds when it comes to their rejection of evolution. From the chances that life would arise from non life (which of course isn't evolution) to the chances that a series of flukes would lead to an earth dominated by man, creationists continue to show a complete misunderstanding of probability.
My simplest retort to those who use these type of arguments is the big jackpot lottery winner. Prior to winning the pot, the player had a mathematical chance of maybe 1 in 15 million, but when the numbers were drawn, his odds went up to 100%.
In other words, if we turn back the clock 4.6 billion years, or even 17 billion years, and then made odds for what life would be like on earth in the year of the fictitious lord 2009, there would be an infinite amount of possible outcomes. The odds that the world would be populated by exactly those who populate it today, with our exact ages, and with our exact lineage (I'm talking plants, all animals) would be as close to zero as it gets.
Just look at us as individual humans.
The first thing is something I can't answer because I aint no biologist, but I can guess until maybe one of my readers sets me straight. It has to do with what exactly makes me me and you you. What exactly makes a fraternal twin different than his or her sibling, for example? Is it the egg that gives us an individual consciousness or is it the sperm, or a combination. And does it depend on which sperm and what exact time that sperm makes it into the egg?
What I mean is that did my parents have to mate at the exact time they did in order to create me? Was there any leeway? Did it have to be that certain sperm at that certain time? Would I be here if another sperm made it to the egg first or if my parents did it 15 seconds sooner or 15 seconds later than they did it? Are chemical reactions in the womb the only difference between me and my siblings? I highly doubt it.
Ok, this is what I'm getting at. I'm going to assume that I wouldn't be here if my parents didn't do it exactly when they did give or take an hour each way. Now lets go back only 300 years. What are the odds that all my ancestors would have met and mated exactly the times they did? From here, it is 100%. But 300 years ago, with wars and disease, and since I'm of Jewish ancestry (and even though I'm 3rd or 4th generation Canadian my ancestors came from all over the place) and we know what Jews had to go through up until very recently, what would be the odds that I would be sitting here writing this blog piece today? What are the chances I would even have the wife I have? It is as close to zero as can be.
We are real flukes whether we like it or not. And we should consider ourselves lucky that we exist, at least for now. Make the most of your win fall.
My simplest retort to those who use these type of arguments is the big jackpot lottery winner. Prior to winning the pot, the player had a mathematical chance of maybe 1 in 15 million, but when the numbers were drawn, his odds went up to 100%.
In other words, if we turn back the clock 4.6 billion years, or even 17 billion years, and then made odds for what life would be like on earth in the year of the fictitious lord 2009, there would be an infinite amount of possible outcomes. The odds that the world would be populated by exactly those who populate it today, with our exact ages, and with our exact lineage (I'm talking plants, all animals) would be as close to zero as it gets.
Just look at us as individual humans.
The first thing is something I can't answer because I aint no biologist, but I can guess until maybe one of my readers sets me straight. It has to do with what exactly makes me me and you you. What exactly makes a fraternal twin different than his or her sibling, for example? Is it the egg that gives us an individual consciousness or is it the sperm, or a combination. And does it depend on which sperm and what exact time that sperm makes it into the egg?
What I mean is that did my parents have to mate at the exact time they did in order to create me? Was there any leeway? Did it have to be that certain sperm at that certain time? Would I be here if another sperm made it to the egg first or if my parents did it 15 seconds sooner or 15 seconds later than they did it? Are chemical reactions in the womb the only difference between me and my siblings? I highly doubt it.
Ok, this is what I'm getting at. I'm going to assume that I wouldn't be here if my parents didn't do it exactly when they did give or take an hour each way. Now lets go back only 300 years. What are the odds that all my ancestors would have met and mated exactly the times they did? From here, it is 100%. But 300 years ago, with wars and disease, and since I'm of Jewish ancestry (and even though I'm 3rd or 4th generation Canadian my ancestors came from all over the place) and we know what Jews had to go through up until very recently, what would be the odds that I would be sitting here writing this blog piece today? What are the chances I would even have the wife I have? It is as close to zero as can be.
We are real flukes whether we like it or not. And we should consider ourselves lucky that we exist, at least for now. Make the most of your win fall.
April 15, 2009
Crackpot Youtube Creationist Kills Himself And Another
Most Youtube atheists are probably familiar with Tony48219 whose real name is Anthony Powell. He used to rant and rave against atheists and evolution from his now deleted Youtube account.
Well, he always seemed crazy, and it turns out he wasn't acting. He did the unthinkable on Friday, and murdered a fellow acting shop student (Asia McGowan, a 20 year old talented and beautiful girl who Tony most likely had a failed crush on).
H/T The Atheist Blogger
The guy was clearly angry in his videos, and delusional. For example, VenomFangX is probably the easiest creationist to refute on Youtube and yet Tony denies that atheists disproved anything he spewed, which is total nonsense). VenonFangX, for those who don't know, disables ratings on his videos, and doesn't allow comments that easily refute his bull crap either.
No one is blaming his form of Christianity for the murder, or the fact that he liked VenomFangX or the fact that he denied evolution. No that isn't it. The guy was a whacko. But his craziness is probably why he liked VenomFangX and why he denied evolution so readily.
As far as I can tell, this murder suicide had nothing to do with his hatred of atheists, but rather his own psychological problems, nothing more and nothing less.
BTW, here is The Amazing Atheist refuting VenomFangX on evolution and the Big Bang, etc. Ok, I know The Amazing Atheist does appear like a Tony type at the beginning of his video, but when he gets down to the nitty gritty, he pretty much rationally destroys everything VenomFangX says.
Well, he always seemed crazy, and it turns out he wasn't acting. He did the unthinkable on Friday, and murdered a fellow acting shop student (Asia McGowan, a 20 year old talented and beautiful girl who Tony most likely had a failed crush on).
H/T The Atheist Blogger
The guy was clearly angry in his videos, and delusional. For example, VenomFangX is probably the easiest creationist to refute on Youtube and yet Tony denies that atheists disproved anything he spewed, which is total nonsense). VenonFangX, for those who don't know, disables ratings on his videos, and doesn't allow comments that easily refute his bull crap either.
No one is blaming his form of Christianity for the murder, or the fact that he liked VenomFangX or the fact that he denied evolution. No that isn't it. The guy was a whacko. But his craziness is probably why he liked VenomFangX and why he denied evolution so readily.
As far as I can tell, this murder suicide had nothing to do with his hatred of atheists, but rather his own psychological problems, nothing more and nothing less.
BTW, here is The Amazing Atheist refuting VenomFangX on evolution and the Big Bang, etc. Ok, I know The Amazing Atheist does appear like a Tony type at the beginning of his video, but when he gets down to the nitty gritty, he pretty much rationally destroys everything VenomFangX says.
April 12, 2009
Happy Easter and Merry Passover
I still have laryngitis. Two years now. Nothing else seriously wrong with me, except I'm 5'11" and I weigh 212, which is OK for a football player, but I'm not a football player. And most of the extra 25 pounds I can afford to lose is located where it looks like I swallowed a bowling ball. I just wanted to let everyone in on a secret:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)