The Atheist Thirteen
Interesting post on atheism over at nullfidian.net. He poses ten questions for atheists; the last three items in the “thirteen” are supposed to be links to other atheist blogs, but I don’t have other links handy, so I’ll make do with the ten questions.
Q1. How would you define “atheism”?
The process of living one’s life without reference to a belief in invisible entities.
Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
Clearing out some old books this week I found a Bible I was given at Methodist Sunday School when I was nine. I honestly don’t remember a single thing about Methodism, and I doubt my parents took it very seriously. (I try to be methodical, but that’s a different subject.)
When I was in high school they took me to the local Unitarian Fellowship; I consider myself a lapsed Unitarian, which is by way of being a little joke, since there is no Unitarian doctrine from which one can lapse.
Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?
Why are we to limit ourselves to one word? That seems to be an invitation to sarcasm. At its best, the doctrine of intelligent design may qualify as an earnest attempt to respond to the fact that, at a fundamental level, the Universe is baffling. In practice, the doctrine amounts to saying, “The Universe can’t possibly be baffling! So here’s an explanation.” Various sorts of chicanery are required to prop up the explanation, but we shouldn’t be surprised at this. All religious doctrines are filled with chicanery.
Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?
Various of them, in different ways and at different times. Mainly astronomy, physics, and paleo-anthropology.
Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?
We need to be more visible, especially in the public sphere. Letting the believers have it all their own way is a serious danger.
Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?
“You’re my child??? When did I father a child, and why didn’t your mother tell me about it?” Oh, you want me to include having a child in the hypothesis? I suppose I might say, “You know, you can do plenty of good for other people without turning yourself into a voluntary imbecile.” Or perhaps I would try to be more polite than that. Perhaps I would say, “Are you going to let me preach a guest sermon once a year?”
Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
I tend to avoid theistic arguments, but I remember a friend saying, “Don’t you feel there must be something?” My response is simple: Feelings have nothing to do with it. If I feel certain the Earth is flat, that doesn’t make the Earth flat.
Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
I’m convinced that religious belief actually helps many people deal with the challenges of life. I don’t advocate atheism as a superior form of emotional adjustment to life; in fact, I think it may make things more difficult. Many people probably lack the temperament for it.
Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
I like Dawkins’s book. Hitchens strikes me as a bit strident and polemical. I haven’t read the others.
Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
The Pope. I think that would make an amusing press conference.
12 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Archives
- July 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (26)
- May 2009 (16)
- April 2009 (20)
- March 2009 (15)
- February 2009 (14)
- January 2009 (23)
- December 2008 (28)
- November 2008 (14)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (15)
- August 2008 (7)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

The Pope! I would like to see make him believe. [Not entirely sure what was meant by this. --JA]
Comment by latinamericanview | June 16, 2008 |
Q3 was more along the lines of a gauging a ‘gut reaction’ or ‘instinctive’ impression of ID as posited by the like of the DI, Johnson, Demski, Behe, et al. (i.e. the cultural realignment movement rather than the (lack of) science) rather than simple creationism.
It certainly would!
Cheers!
Comment by nullifidian | June 16, 2008 |
Some good answers there Jim.
Cheers,
jdc.
Comment by jdc | June 17, 2008 |
You cop out on intelligent design, Jim. That’s because there are sound scientific theories regarding it. Even Dawkins believes in intelligent design.
Respectfully, you have no substantial scientific theories behind your atheism.
We are not so smart as God is dumb.
RevRomansky
http://revromansky.wordpress.org
Comment by revromansky | September 23, 2008 |
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, RevRomansky is about as articulate as the average knuckle-dragging religionist. (He can spell, I’ll give him that.) Each of those five sentences is a bizarre mixup.
I will cheerfully agree with the Rev that if there’s a God, he’s a blinkin’ moron. I think that’s what sentence 5 must mean.
With respect to sentence 2, asserting that “there are sound scientific theories regarding [intelligent design]” is a copout, because he doesn’t set forth any of the alleged theories. The only sound scientific theory I’m aware of with respect to intelligent design is that it has no scientific basis whatever.
Tossing Dawkins’s name out like that is no better than saying, “Darwin died a Christian.” Someone once shouted the latter phrase at me from the cab of a passing pickup truck — and that says something about the level of reasoned discourse of which the speaker was capable. Please quote chapter and verse, Rev: Show me the full text in which Dawkins agrees with any of the basic tenets of ID. And please don’t quote him out of context! Show me the full text. Or admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Your choice.
With respect to sentence 4 — first of all, it’s grotesquely overreaching to assert that I have no scientific theories that would support atheism. A person who was capable of reasoned discourse would have _asked_ me to set forth my theories so that they could be analyzed, not simply asserted that they didn’t exist. Only morons engage in that kind of “argument by denial.”
Second, if the Rev is enamored enough of scientific theories to feel that atheism needs to be supported by them, then I would like to turn the question back on him: Show me a sound scientific theory that supports the idea that there is a “God”! Because, dude, there isn’t one. None of the science we have managed to scrape together on our miserable little planet in the past hundred years supports that idea. Not one scrap of it.
Footnote: Check out the Rev’s blog. It’s at revromansky.wordpress.com, not …org. The guy is a flaming loonie! Probably well-intentioned (though you never know — those religionists can turn on the hatred in the blink of an eye!). I know better than to post any replies to his blog posts. There’s no point trying to reason with these people, because they’re impervious to reason. But if he comes over to my backyard barbecue, he can expect to get roasted.
Comment by midiguru | September 23, 2008 |
midiguru, in case you’re wondering, “ad hominem” is spelled with two “m’s”.
Instead of offering one proof, you offer vitriol, which I’m coming to find out is the only proof that can be offered by those such challenged. Red herrings stink, my friend, and your appeal to authority, re: org vs. com, falls flat.
Now, as to my ongoing assertion that atheists are really just mad at God…
RevRomansky
http://revromansky.wordpress.com
Comment by revromansky | September 23, 2008 |
No scientific proof of the absence of God is needed, because there is no scientific proof of the existence of God. The shoe is very firmly on your foot here, Rev. If you don’t understand that, it’s because you have no clue about what science is.
Vitriol? You needn’t expect me to be polite about your idiocy. I won’t bother. I won’t attack you on your blog, but as I said, if you wander into my backyard barbecue, you can expect to get roasted.
How could one be mad at something (”God”) that doesn’t exist? I’m certainly angry at the barbarities perpetrated by religious believers over the millenia — you bet! Do you disavow those barbarities? Or do you support them?
For starters, Rev, where are you on gay marriage? Hmm? Do you support the right of any two unmarried adults to marry one another? Because if you don’t, you’re a vicious dog, and I will have nothing further to say to you. If you do, then I applaud your lovely little seed of humanity, and encourage you to nurture it so that it will blossom.
Comment by midiguru | September 23, 2008 |
Q 3-Intelligent design
For starters, midi, where do you stand on that? With Dawkins, who believes in ID, howbeit alien designers?
I refer to your vitriol specific to its failed purpose.
Another red herring, but this dog is too well trained to follow the scent.
Q 3? No, I thought not. It’s science…
RevRomansky
http://revromansky.wordpress.com
Comment by revromansky | September 23, 2008 |
None of that made a bit of sense. He’s babbling now. (Why am I not surprised?)
I’m still waiting to see that quote from Dawkins, bub. I’ve read Dawkins. Has the Rev? Or is he only parroting something somebody else told him about Dawkins?
Gay marriage is certainly a separate issue, but it’s not a red herring. I was giving an example that illustrates why I hate religion (not “God”).
Just for fun, I looked up Intelligent Design on Wikipedia. Here’s the relevant paragraph: “The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.” The American Association for the Advancement of Science says “intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory.” The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.”
Comment by midiguru | September 23, 2008 |
Wikipedia. Written by anyone. Midiguru, if you’re going to reference, at least use a qualified source.
Anyway, you’re a great sport and quite a personality. Thanks for the barbecue.
God Bless,
RevRomansky
http://revromansky.wordpress.com
Comment by revromansky | September 24, 2008 |
This is charming. He ignores the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, but takes a potshot at Wikipedia (which is certainly vulnerable to potshots).
Just for fun, I hopped over the the National Academies website. Here’s a page that provides a number of free downloads on evolution: http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/. This is the real deal. I wonder if the Rev will take the time to read and mull over any of those documents. Or … do you suppose his mind is already made up? (See my more recent post on “‘God’and Science.”)
Comment by midiguru | September 24, 2008 |
Midi, you want me to prove God by science. ID is a developing theory that is subject to the scientific necessity of disprovability. It’s emerging, okay? But it is disprovable, something that hasn’t been done. It’s in the scientific model.
Evolution is not subject to disprovability. You know it’s not. You can’t state how it is.
Atheism is not subject to disprovability. It’s not scientific.
We conclude, do we not, that it takes belief, not proof, to subscribe to evolution and atheism, just like God.
RevRomansky
http://revromansky.wordpress.com
Comment by revromansky | September 25, 2008 |