Menu Bar
Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Seth McFarlane on Real Time with Bill Maher.
May 9, 2009 11:49 AM
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Highest rating anything by McFarlane got from me in over two years.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
how is this entertaining?
how is this relevant?
so he's an atheist.
who cares?
how is this relevant?
so he's an atheist.
who cares?
By: wadadde
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Make that 3 on the who cares tally. Although have you guys voted down, because this thing is still sitting on 4 stars?
By: gerrywastaken
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
I like this haiku-comment-format idea of yours. Here's my haiku comment:
What's that smell?
Where's the spatula?
So this is Albuquerque.
Who died?
What's that smell?
Where's the spatula?
So this is Albuquerque.
Who died?
By: decavolt
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
What the hell just happened here? Without a longer clip this short snip doesn't have much relevance to anything at all other than the short "I am an Atheist" from Seth, confirming what everyone who isn't hiding under a rock already knew.
By: ejayerik
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Solidarity, if nothing else. Religion is forefront in media, those who defend it, those who criticize, those who offended because they are religious, those who are offended by those who are religious, but religion is the subject. How many prominent people can you name who are not making money on proclaiming their atheism for a profit (Dawkins books, etc, etc.) who are outspoken about their atheism? A proud Christian will stand up and be counted, but you can only count on the average atheist to watch them on TV and maybe bitch in a blog. I'm proud to have been raised in a suffocating, mind-fuck Christian social setting and then matured into a reasonable, rational person with a realistic world view who can say "I am an Atheist," and not worry what people will think about it. Bill Maher asserted that religion is the enemy of reason and peace, and I find it damn encouraging to see someone as prominent as MacFarlane (who is more or less keeping Fox afloat in Primetime) say it out loud.
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
So this is a video representation of your Atheist soapbox? How is that different than a religious soapbox if that was your intention?
(Some would say that Atheism in itself is a religion)
(Some would say that Atheism in itself is a religion)
By: ejayerik
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Atheism is a religion in the same way that someone who doesn't play a musical instrument - is a musician.
By: gypo
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Nicely summarized. Your quote or not, a great one.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
The point still stands. Its a soapbox video that detracts from the site. Seems like they've been headlined more and more frequently in past months.
I come here for entertaining. I come here for interesting. I dont come here for someone else's self justification. Maybe I'm in the wrong place?
I come here for entertaining. I come here for interesting. I dont come here for someone else's self justification. Maybe I'm in the wrong place?
By: Avecrien
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
EJ Erik didn't really have a point. If this is a soapbox, what would you say if I built a building, invited hundreds or thousands of people to it every week, begged them for money while yelling at them about preposterous nonsense? This is not a soapbox, this is the unabashed assertion that we, and we ALONE have claim to credibility and reason (we don't believe in fairy tales) and we're not afraid to call bullshit for what it is. You just don't like it.
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
You're right in that there isn't much of a point to my posts here. I still believe that if you dumb down your reply it sounds like a soapbox speech. But hell, you can say what ever you want to say. I just don't see much of a difference between posts of religion or anti-religion especially here at M&C.
By: ejayerik
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
That "creed of the Atheist" doesn't sound any different than any television religious nut who claims to be the only point of view that is 100% correct.
If I didn't know you better Rabid, I'd say you sounded rabid. ;)
If I didn't know you better Rabid, I'd say you sounded rabid. ;)
By: ejayerik
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
At what point does MacFarlane justify anything? You state that these types of clips have been "headlined more and more frequently in past months". That is the exact point of this video. Here on M&C and in society at large there seems to be more of a movement toward the acceptance of atheism. No one is on a soapbox here as far as I can see. These guys aren't lecturing.
By: Count_Bubba
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Joke is on you. I don't play in instrument and I am a musician.
By: ejayerik
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Anything above is Act 1. Anything below is Act II. You may call me the Interlude, but God is fine, too. I like to watch and do nothing otherwise. Maybe if one of you is a fair lady virgin, I'll get out of bed, fly down on my space elevator, and fuck you senselessly immaculate and nine months later you will somehow find yourself in a barn crying for mercy. I hope your husband will be loving and caring, because you can be sure I won't lift a finger to alleviate your suffering. Sacrifice a moose, though, in my name, and I might have a surprise for you.
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
that was awesome :))
had to read it a second time..
you're like a fucking flamethrower!
had to read it a second time..
you're like a fucking flamethrower!
By: wadadde
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
It's so tempting to write Act III all myself and flag all comments that may or may not be posted underneath it.
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
And to those who think I just contradicted myself, remember that God works in mysterious ways.
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Atheism not a religion? Are you kidding me? It isn't a crime to (correctly) label a set of principles/beliefs/practices/etc. as a 'religion,' primarily because what it boils down to is that any religion is focused on what we, as human beings, are most concerned with. I still see the current separation of science and religion as a de-evolution from past foundational thinkers that were very religious and still able to think rationally and in a progressive manner. Tsk.
By: exlax
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
When you say people who think rationally and are still very religous, do you mean people like Al Ghazali?
By: cheezsteak
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Oh, yes, definitely. And also the catholic church, particularly during the early and high medieval periods, and when they opposed Galileo. Oh, and don't forget the cults that institute mass suicides. Those are the ones I'm getting at...
Obviously that is NOT what I mean, and you can go through the list in your head of notable, contributing scientists through the ages that were religious, and there are numerous intellectual people today that harbor/exercise zealotry for what they believe in.
Obviously that is NOT what I mean, and you can go through the list in your head of notable, contributing scientists through the ages that were religious, and there are numerous intellectual people today that harbor/exercise zealotry for what they believe in.
By: exlax
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Oh, yes, definitely. And also the catholic church, particularly during the early and high medieval periods, and when they opposed Galileo. Oh, and don't forget the cults that institute mass suicides. Those are the ones I'm getting at...
Obviously that is NOT what I mean, and you can go through the list in your head of notable, contributing scientists through the ages that were religious, and there are numerous intellectual people today that do not harbor/exercise zealotry for what they believe in.
Obviously that is NOT what I mean, and you can go through the list in your head of notable, contributing scientists through the ages that were religious, and there are numerous intellectual people today that do not harbor/exercise zealotry for what they believe in.
By: exlax
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
All religions are worldviews. Not all worldviews are religions.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Atheism is not defined by a set of beliefs, only the specific lack of belief in God for lack of evidence. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, either. Is that a religion?
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Come now Rabid, I've seen too many of your posts to accept that you'll distill so simplistically what I was getting at (though I suppose the same could be said in part of my comment). Ones religion doesn't have to be defined alone by a set of beliefs, and I agree with you about atheism not having a defined set of beliefs. However, atheism is most definitely defined by principles and goals (i.e reason over blind faith, trust in the strength of humanity over distant god(s), etc.) that is shown consistently through many proclaimed atheists. Those who claim to hold an atheist mentality are concerned with truth, finding the truth through the innate abilities found within man, and ultimately, happiness. Though the *means* of getting those three goals are different between atheism and religions in the general sense, the aim, in the stricter sense, is the same.
By: exlax
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Actually, atheism is just the absence of a theistic belief. Get it? Atheism? It's a term that applies to nihilists as well as secular humanists.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
You're right. Yet, that still doesn't refute the point I was making above, in that atheism is, at least how I see it today, more than "just" the absence of a theistic belief. I agree entirely that intrinsically, atheism is just as you say it is. However, that atheists choose to write books, create well thought-out lectures, and voice their opinions in regards to atheism and in opposition to traditional religions, makes it more than, "just the lack of a theistic belief." My point is illustrated by Seth's action, for a relevant, recent example.
By: exlax
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Actually, it does refute the point you were making above. You're making an organization where there is none, and assuming all atheists share in the beliefs of this imaginary organization. You're creating the religion, not the atheists.
Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, PZ Meyers and the like are not representative of all atheists. Many atheists disapprove of what they say and do. It's readily apparent that the aforementioned atheists are not representative of atheists in general: The aforementioned are quite outspoken, while most atheists remain "closeted." To look at the most outspoken of a group and say that they represent the group is unfair. Especially after you just stated that atheism is intrinsically different than how you portray them.
Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, PZ Meyers and the like are not representative of all atheists. Many atheists disapprove of what they say and do. It's readily apparent that the aforementioned atheists are not representative of atheists in general: The aforementioned are quite outspoken, while most atheists remain "closeted." To look at the most outspoken of a group and say that they represent the group is unfair. Especially after you just stated that atheism is intrinsically different than how you portray them.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
I'm not making an organization or creating the religion, I'm labeling atheism for what it is: a religion. It may not be an organized religion, but that doesn't remove atheism from one of the definitions of a religion, which is this: like minded persons sharing a similar set of beliefs. All atheists don't have to share *all* the same beliefs, just as all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, etc. do not share all the same beliefs, for each respective group to be a religion.
And you are correct, it would be unfair to say that the most outspoken in a group represent the whole. We now have two sects to atheism: those that choose to speak out about their beliefs, and those that do not; the two are still related because they still share the primary atheist thought (no god), even if all the individuals in the group do not share all the beliefs of the others in the group.
The intrinsic value (or non-value) of atheism still does not remove the value that exists by virtue of expression by those claiming to be atheist. If it has no meaning, why waste the energy to inform others that one is atheist? Because it means something to the individual. Enough individuals care to inform others that they are atheist, this creates a group. This group shares a similar belief(s) and has similar aims (individual pursuit of truth, simply existing, being the best ping pong player, yadda yadda), calling it a religion, which by a definition it is, is correct.
And you are correct, it would be unfair to say that the most outspoken in a group represent the whole. We now have two sects to atheism: those that choose to speak out about their beliefs, and those that do not; the two are still related because they still share the primary atheist thought (no god), even if all the individuals in the group do not share all the beliefs of the others in the group.
The intrinsic value (or non-value) of atheism still does not remove the value that exists by virtue of expression by those claiming to be atheist. If it has no meaning, why waste the energy to inform others that one is atheist? Because it means something to the individual. Enough individuals care to inform others that they are atheist, this creates a group. This group shares a similar belief(s) and has similar aims (individual pursuit of truth, simply existing, being the best ping pong player, yadda yadda), calling it a religion, which by a definition it is, is correct.
By: exlax
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
This is the type of thing that kills me about this argument that atheism is a religion. In my opinion (jaded as it may be) atheism as a movement MUST have principles and goals as you propose.
The reason it must isn't, however, that those truly exist in atheism itself but that the organization of a large group of atheist's into a movement with any common purpose (political or otherwise) must then by definition have principles and goals.
I suppose my point is that I am an atheist in two senses of the word;
1) I believe in a scientific explanation of everything, even if it seems unexplainable.
2) Lives or life in general have no intrinsic value, the value is subjective always.
The fact (for me) remains, there is no god. That said, I will certainly lend a hand to any Atheist religion that takes the reigns of power from people who pray to anything for answers, though I doubt I will share many of the principles. (Especially if one of them has to do with humanity being stronger than anything, considering humanity's lack of power even over our own destiny.)
The reason it must isn't, however, that those truly exist in atheism itself but that the organization of a large group of atheist's into a movement with any common purpose (political or otherwise) must then by definition have principles and goals.
I suppose my point is that I am an atheist in two senses of the word;
1) I believe in a scientific explanation of everything, even if it seems unexplainable.
2) Lives or life in general have no intrinsic value, the value is subjective always.
The fact (for me) remains, there is no god. That said, I will certainly lend a hand to any Atheist religion that takes the reigns of power from people who pray to anything for answers, though I doubt I will share many of the principles. (Especially if one of them has to do with humanity being stronger than anything, considering humanity's lack of power even over our own destiny.)
By: ROXYBOO
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Cogent points, I agree with you that the values I mentioned are not existent inherently within atheism, but by virtue of the numerous atheists that exist and do hold (some of) the same or similar views, and do express those views in similar fashion.
And I do see the error on my part in saying that a trust in humanity might be one of atheism's viewpoints.
And I do see the error on my part in saying that a trust in humanity might be one of atheism's viewpoints.
By: exlax
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Atheism is not a set of principles/beliefs/practices/etc.
It is the lack of a belief in something.
Under that definition you could argue for secular humanism to be a religion (which is ironic) but not atheism.
Someone who doesn't believe in Zeus is not a part of the religion of those who don't believe in Zeus. A baby is also not a member of a religion just because it lacks belief in any gods.
Also, just because some people can compartmentalize the nonsense they believe doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
It is the lack of a belief in something.
Under that definition you could argue for secular humanism to be a religion (which is ironic) but not atheism.
Someone who doesn't believe in Zeus is not a part of the religion of those who don't believe in Zeus. A baby is also not a member of a religion just because it lacks belief in any gods.
Also, just because some people can compartmentalize the nonsense they believe doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
By: DaveoftheRave
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
I thought this was a fairly harmless clip and wondered why it had been posted, since I thought it was well worn path of how MacFarlane felt about Religion.
Sure solidarity with religion can be a lot easier than "coming out" as an atheist but this just felt to me more like a whimper than an explosion. All a matter of perspective. Get Mel Gibson to do it and watch the media circus on that one.
But due to the amount of response though, I have to retract my opinion. Anyone in entertainment confirming their beliefs "against the norm" is certainly sticking their neck out there and is risking a considerable amount of money. So clap clap Seth, ya have balls !
Sure solidarity with religion can be a lot easier than "coming out" as an atheist but this just felt to me more like a whimper than an explosion. All a matter of perspective. Get Mel Gibson to do it and watch the media circus on that one.
But due to the amount of response though, I have to retract my opinion. Anyone in entertainment confirming their beliefs "against the norm" is certainly sticking their neck out there and is risking a considerable amount of money. So clap clap Seth, ya have balls !
By: gilga
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
I posted this deeper on the thread but I spent some time on this and want it on the front page. What can I say, I'm a Narcissist Atheist.
I was thinking about an illustration of this concept. Imagine a person who has lived alone his entire life. He has no name, and has no concept of self. For the sake of argument, let us say he is the last living human, and he was raised impartially by a computer which was entirely without personality, and did nothing more than provide food and medical care and teach the person language and science. This person is completely unaware of the concept of culture or personal-identity, as the only thing he has ever known was instruction in scientific fields of study, mathematics, physics, chemistry, what have you. As an adult, who has learned the net sum of human knowledge in regard to hard science, he has no concept of superstition. For him, there is only known and unknown, and a method of changing the unknown into the known. From here, let us conjecture: Is this person an atheist? If there is no one else to compare him to, does he require a label? What is the significance to him of that which he has never considered?
Now, I'll go further:
This person, now to be known as person A, is NOT the last person alive. He is just as isolated from other people as described before, but there is another person, Person B, who was raised in exactly the same way. Person B is a perfect clone of Person A, is the same age as Person A and has exactly the same level of intelligence. One day, Person B is told by the computer that it was programmed to suggested to that person that there is an invisible being which is all powerful and all knowing but which chooses not to ever reveal itself in a way which can be observed or measured, about which nothing can be proved scientifically because it leaves no evidence at all of it's existence. The being exists entirely inside the realm of theory. Person B concludes that because he cannot disprove the existence of the being, that further conjecture is pointless.
Is Person B at this time an Atheist? If so, how does his belief structure differ from that of Person A? Do Person A and B now belong to a religion, though neither are familiar with the concept of religion, and there is no one else to be excluded from the religion? If every living person belongs to the same religion, what is the value of a label?
Let us conjecture further yet:
There is a third Person, Person C.
Person C has received no scientific instruction. He has only enough language to understand the concepts of the religion which the computer describes to him. Let us say this religion is described thusly: Person C believes God exists, and that God communicated with people who lived in the past and who are now dead and leave no further record than that which the computer relates, that record being only that the people who did exist at one time believed that God communicated with them. What God communicated was that any Person who does not accept his existence would be killed by God and that such a person would be tortured forever after being killed. Person C has only the word of people he has never met and knows nothing except the word of those people to convince him of they're ideas, but he also has no reason to doubt as no alternative has ever been suggested. He also has no idea what death is or whether or not he will die himself, as he has no knowledge of science. He doesn't even know what the difference between life and death is.
Does Person C belong to a religion?
If so, are Person A and Person B members of a religion? Is it the same religion, or do they have different religions?
Now, let us introduce Person C and Person B. They do not meet in person, but communicate through the computer. Person C describes to Person B his beliefs. Person B considers the suggestions of Person C and replies that the beliefs of Person C are false, because a person cannot be tortured after death. He still cannot disprove the existence of God, but neither can he prove it. He disbelieves that if God exists he kills people but has no belief in regard to the existence of God.
Does Person B belong to a religion? Does Person A? Are the religions of Person A and B the same?
Person C, upon hearing that Person B does not believe in God realizes that if God were real, Person B should have been killed. Person C becomes convinced that he was lied to about God, and that his religion was false. He now believes that God does NOT exist, because his belief system is closed and cyclic.
So, the facts are:
Person A has never heard of God.
Person B has heard of God, but can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.
Person C actively believes that God does NOT exist.
None actively believe that God exists.
----------------------------
Which Person(s) has/have religion?
If more than one has a religion, which ones?
If they do, are they the same religion?
What criteria would you use to determine the answers to these questions?
My challenge for anyone who will accept it is this:
Prove logically that each is an atheist, and identify the common characteristic can be found in each Person which ties them together as an Atheist. Only one example is needed, but it must be found to be applicable to all three Persons.
Extra Credit:
Prove that the computer, which communicates and reacts to each person as dynamically and completely as any two of the people can interact, is not itself an atheist.
I was thinking about an illustration of this concept. Imagine a person who has lived alone his entire life. He has no name, and has no concept of self. For the sake of argument, let us say he is the last living human, and he was raised impartially by a computer which was entirely without personality, and did nothing more than provide food and medical care and teach the person language and science. This person is completely unaware of the concept of culture or personal-identity, as the only thing he has ever known was instruction in scientific fields of study, mathematics, physics, chemistry, what have you. As an adult, who has learned the net sum of human knowledge in regard to hard science, he has no concept of superstition. For him, there is only known and unknown, and a method of changing the unknown into the known. From here, let us conjecture: Is this person an atheist? If there is no one else to compare him to, does he require a label? What is the significance to him of that which he has never considered?
Now, I'll go further:
This person, now to be known as person A, is NOT the last person alive. He is just as isolated from other people as described before, but there is another person, Person B, who was raised in exactly the same way. Person B is a perfect clone of Person A, is the same age as Person A and has exactly the same level of intelligence. One day, Person B is told by the computer that it was programmed to suggested to that person that there is an invisible being which is all powerful and all knowing but which chooses not to ever reveal itself in a way which can be observed or measured, about which nothing can be proved scientifically because it leaves no evidence at all of it's existence. The being exists entirely inside the realm of theory. Person B concludes that because he cannot disprove the existence of the being, that further conjecture is pointless.
Is Person B at this time an Atheist? If so, how does his belief structure differ from that of Person A? Do Person A and B now belong to a religion, though neither are familiar with the concept of religion, and there is no one else to be excluded from the religion? If every living person belongs to the same religion, what is the value of a label?
Let us conjecture further yet:
There is a third Person, Person C.
Person C has received no scientific instruction. He has only enough language to understand the concepts of the religion which the computer describes to him. Let us say this religion is described thusly: Person C believes God exists, and that God communicated with people who lived in the past and who are now dead and leave no further record than that which the computer relates, that record being only that the people who did exist at one time believed that God communicated with them. What God communicated was that any Person who does not accept his existence would be killed by God and that such a person would be tortured forever after being killed. Person C has only the word of people he has never met and knows nothing except the word of those people to convince him of they're ideas, but he also has no reason to doubt as no alternative has ever been suggested. He also has no idea what death is or whether or not he will die himself, as he has no knowledge of science. He doesn't even know what the difference between life and death is.
Does Person C belong to a religion?
If so, are Person A and Person B members of a religion? Is it the same religion, or do they have different religions?
Now, let us introduce Person C and Person B. They do not meet in person, but communicate through the computer. Person C describes to Person B his beliefs. Person B considers the suggestions of Person C and replies that the beliefs of Person C are false, because a person cannot be tortured after death. He still cannot disprove the existence of God, but neither can he prove it. He disbelieves that if God exists he kills people but has no belief in regard to the existence of God.
Does Person B belong to a religion? Does Person A? Are the religions of Person A and B the same?
Person C, upon hearing that Person B does not believe in God realizes that if God were real, Person B should have been killed. Person C becomes convinced that he was lied to about God, and that his religion was false. He now believes that God does NOT exist, because his belief system is closed and cyclic.
So, the facts are:
Person A has never heard of God.
Person B has heard of God, but can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.
Person C actively believes that God does NOT exist.
None actively believe that God exists.
----------------------------
Which Person(s) has/have religion?
If more than one has a religion, which ones?
If they do, are they the same religion?
What criteria would you use to determine the answers to these questions?
My challenge for anyone who will accept it is this:
Prove logically that each is an atheist, and identify the common characteristic can be found in each Person which ties them together as an Atheist. Only one example is needed, but it must be found to be applicable to all three Persons.
Extra Credit:
Prove that the computer, which communicates and reacts to each person as dynamically and completely as any two of the people can interact, is not itself an atheist.
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Person A: Isn’t it within our nature to look for and imagine things outside of the boundaries of hard science? For sake of my fingers, I’d say that this person is not an Atheist as he/she has no basis in which to form such an opinion one way or the other if your definition of Atheist is the denial of God the idea. I see what you are getting at. Without influence of past persons, beliefs, or dogmas and with only pure analytical knowledge could this person be labeled something that he/she know nothing about? Is absence of belief in a God the same as Atheism no matter why this absence is in existence? If I never knew that something existed or had any concept to form such an existence myself then would I be categorized with those who do have a concept of such an idea and deny it’s real existence? Person A forms more questions than answers in my mind.
Person B: Person B is Agnostic.
Religion is a human term used by us to label us. Person A and Person B having no prior concept of religion could theoretically form a religion based on what the definition of religion is with the right ingredients. Do they belong to a religion? I don’t think they do belong to a religion. There is no value to a label if there are no persons excluded from the definition. As mentioned earlier, some feel that certain Atheists worship Darwin much like (in some ways more faithfully) than they do their own God which is why I mentioned oh so long ago that some would say that Atheism is a religion.
Person C: I don’t know if Person C would belong to a religion as his beliefs would have be labeled and predetermined by a set of parameters unknown to him. Without all of the junk added to his belief in a God I would say that he in his unique circumstances was the only member of his religion as set by your parameters.
Do Persons A and B belong to a religion? Not by any religion I know. However their circumstances are unique and with my first sentence in mind if they started to view the computer in the same light as some do God would they belong to a religion? Would they be Atheist or Agnostic?
What if God visited Person A and did not tell Person A outright that he was God, only that he was another person. Would the fact that this person didn’t mention God mean that God doesn’t exist? Would he still be Atheist in your eyes?
You have presented a very controlled set of circumstances. I understand that you are trying to illustrate a point but these set of circumstances raise their own set of questions and frankly, we don’t like in that world. We live in this world and need these set of circumstances to make an assessment of our surroundings, opinions beliefs, or lack of beliefs.
Person A B and C do not actively believe in God’s existence because you wrote it that way. Those dead and in the past believed in God because others wrote it that way. Do only children believe in magic? And do only adults believe there is nothing more to what’s around us than what our minds can comprehend?
I can not answer which persons have a religion based on your information.
I can not prove all of them are Atheists either based on your information.
The computer, having knowledge of God as stated in your story, would have to form an opinion based on the said knowledge to be labeled an Atheist. Additionally, you mentioned earlier that the computer was not dynamic, but lacked personality. I can not, nor you I suspect, can prove that the computer is religious, Atheist, Agnostic, or otherwise.
Person B: Person B is Agnostic.
Religion is a human term used by us to label us. Person A and Person B having no prior concept of religion could theoretically form a religion based on what the definition of religion is with the right ingredients. Do they belong to a religion? I don’t think they do belong to a religion. There is no value to a label if there are no persons excluded from the definition. As mentioned earlier, some feel that certain Atheists worship Darwin much like (in some ways more faithfully) than they do their own God which is why I mentioned oh so long ago that some would say that Atheism is a religion.
Person C: I don’t know if Person C would belong to a religion as his beliefs would have be labeled and predetermined by a set of parameters unknown to him. Without all of the junk added to his belief in a God I would say that he in his unique circumstances was the only member of his religion as set by your parameters.
Do Persons A and B belong to a religion? Not by any religion I know. However their circumstances are unique and with my first sentence in mind if they started to view the computer in the same light as some do God would they belong to a religion? Would they be Atheist or Agnostic?
What if God visited Person A and did not tell Person A outright that he was God, only that he was another person. Would the fact that this person didn’t mention God mean that God doesn’t exist? Would he still be Atheist in your eyes?
You have presented a very controlled set of circumstances. I understand that you are trying to illustrate a point but these set of circumstances raise their own set of questions and frankly, we don’t like in that world. We live in this world and need these set of circumstances to make an assessment of our surroundings, opinions beliefs, or lack of beliefs.
Person A B and C do not actively believe in God’s existence because you wrote it that way. Those dead and in the past believed in God because others wrote it that way. Do only children believe in magic? And do only adults believe there is nothing more to what’s around us than what our minds can comprehend?
I can not answer which persons have a religion based on your information.
I can not prove all of them are Atheists either based on your information.
The computer, having knowledge of God as stated in your story, would have to form an opinion based on the said knowledge to be labeled an Atheist. Additionally, you mentioned earlier that the computer was not dynamic, but lacked personality. I can not, nor you I suspect, can prove that the computer is religious, Atheist, Agnostic, or otherwise.
By: ejayerik
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
Hello Dear,
How are you doing? i was checking out prolife and i find you lovely profile here on myspace you look so good and i acnt wait to tell someone like you about myself i will like to knwo you better,well here are some things that we like you to no about me My real name is Lara Alex but my friends call me Mom Girl, am 30 years single, but presently i run my mum's orphanage.. in Texas.although its a non-profit making organization but the joy of doing this when you see the kids that you pick from the street have a great future ...the happiness they show on there face when you do what there parents are supposed to be doing for them...Anyways i like what i do. What should i say about myself? I was once a fool and this has really drawn me back all thanks to God....For now i just had to pick up my life again because of the past. I am looking for a date to possibly develop a relationship with. I am a Christian and I put my faith in God above all other things.
Now i am trying to relocate to find my soul mate. I hope I was going to find my soul mate on the dating site but just when i thought I should quit then you came with a sincerity word.I hope you are an honest man because the most important characteristics to me are compatibility and friendship. I'd like to find someone who's open, honest and easy going. A sense of humor is a big plus. I ideally we'd have some shared interests and goals, as well as some similarities in opinion about what's important in life. As silly as it sounds, I believe in love at first sight although this has put me in so much trouble. I would like to know more about you .Well i guess i can know more about you now? Hope to hear from you soon..
Here is my yahoo id Lara.Alex99@ymail.com and you can also im me there too i am very happy to find your profile but i pray that you should be a good and lovely man as your pix look so good to....
Lara Alex
How are you doing? i was checking out prolife and i find you lovely profile here on myspace you look so good and i acnt wait to tell someone like you about myself i will like to knwo you better,well here are some things that we like you to no about me My real name is Lara Alex but my friends call me Mom Girl, am 30 years single, but presently i run my mum's orphanage.. in Texas.although its a non-profit making organization but the joy of doing this when you see the kids that you pick from the street have a great future ...the happiness they show on there face when you do what there parents are supposed to be doing for them...Anyways i like what i do. What should i say about myself? I was once a fool and this has really drawn me back all thanks to God....For now i just had to pick up my life again because of the past. I am looking for a date to possibly develop a relationship with. I am a Christian and I put my faith in God above all other things.
Now i am trying to relocate to find my soul mate. I hope I was going to find my soul mate on the dating site but just when i thought I should quit then you came with a sincerity word.I hope you are an honest man because the most important characteristics to me are compatibility and friendship. I'd like to find someone who's open, honest and easy going. A sense of humor is a big plus. I ideally we'd have some shared interests and goals, as well as some similarities in opinion about what's important in life. As silly as it sounds, I believe in love at first sight although this has put me in so much trouble. I would like to know more about you .Well i guess i can know more about you now? Hope to hear from you soon..
Here is my yahoo id Lara.Alex99@ymail.com and you can also im me there too i am very happy to find your profile but i pray that you should be a good and lovely man as your pix look so good to....
Lara Alex
By: lara99
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
I think she's talking to you Rabid.
By: ejayerik
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
I think she thinks she's on myspace. Or maybe it's your Homer icon... someone point her in the direction of Springfield.
Re: Real Time: Seth MacFarlane on the Atheist Movement
If I had to guess, I'd say she works at the Nigerian consulate. And maybe, just maybe, she has some money for us!
By: Count_Bubba
