Atheist manifesto

[Ziploc Surprise]

I found this somewhat long article on the internet today. It's entitled the Atheist manifesto. Any thoughts on it? I'm especially curious about what you think about #4. In #9 I'd like to know what religions they are talking about. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ce=message

[NoMoreFaith]

Not a bad article, thou I resent applying so many views to a simple non-belief in God(s)™.

You're right about #4, it makes a faulty case that "this does not make us scientistic. Scientism is the belief that science provides the only means of gaining true knowledge of the world, " and then creates a strawman by "History, for example, may ultimately depend on nothing more than the movements of atoms, but you cannot understand the battle of Hastings by examining interactions of fermions and bosons."

Your understanding of the battle of Hastings, is based upon the accounts of the battle written by men, science cannot objectively examine it, however, it is a mistake to say that our understanding of the battle of hastings IS a "true knowledge of the world". History is well known to be written by the victors after all.
What I would say is that you can never really achieve "true knowledge" of a subject like history, and there is no reason why you would invoke fermions and bosons. A healthy understanding of the scientific method allows you to apply constructive criticism to a written account of history, and refuse to accept it as definitely "true". It can only aspire to be the "truest" account we are capable of.
Science may not explain subjective states, only objective, this is true, but I don't know of anyone who has claimed otherwise.. which makes his point a little .. pointless.

As for #9, some types of Buddhism and Hinduism allow for atheism, and a rejection of Dogma in favour of provable science I think. But maybe I'm wrong.

[downbeatplumb]

I found this somewhat long article on the internet today. It's entitled the Atheist manifesto. Any thoughts on it? I'm especially curious about what you think about #4. In #9 I'd like to know what religions they are talking about. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ce=message

Bugger.

I was just about to post this and you beat me too it.

Had the link copied and everything.

Walks off in a huff.

[Minimalist]

I can do an atheist manifesto in one sentence.

There is no god but ...... no there is NO GOD and he has no fucking prophet.

[Ziploc Surprise]

You're right about #4, it makes a faulty case that "this does not make us scientistic. Scientism is the belief that science provides the only means of gaining true knowledge of the world, " and then creates a strawman by "History, for example, may ultimately depend on nothing more than the movements of atoms, but you cannot understand the battle of Hastings by examining interactions of fermions and bosons."

Your understanding of the battle of Hastings, is based upon the accounts of the battle written by men, science cannot objectively examine it, however, it is a mistake to say that our understanding of the battle of hastings IS a "true knowledge of the world". History is well known to be written by the victors after all.
What I would say is that you can never really achieve "true knowledge" of a subject like history, and there is no reason why you would invoke fermions and bosons. A healthy understanding of the scientific method allows you to apply constructive criticism to a written account of history, and refuse to accept it as definitely "true". It can only aspire to be the "truest" account we are capable of.
Science may not explain subjective states, only objective, this is true, but I don't know of anyone who has claimed otherwise.. which makes his point a little .. pointless.

I guess my real problem with #4 is that some people mold this idea into some sort of shape that can hold a bit of god(s). Others use it to downplay scientific achievement and the potential for scientific progress.

[Modular Moog V]

I found this somewhat long article on the internet today. It's entitled the Atheist manifesto. Any thoughts on it? I'm especially curious about what you think about #4. In #9 I'd like to know what religions they are talking about. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ce=message

A possible candidate for #9 is: here

[Rev. Rye]

I think it's been mentioned before that Buddhism doesn't require a belief in a deity. Come to think of it, LaVeyan Satanism doesn't really believe in any literal God, either.

[Blanca]

I really liked the point that was made in #4. I regard science with high esteem but certainly recognize that it is man-made and has severe limitations. It does seem like science is god to many people, though.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I found this somewhat long article on the internet today. It's entitled the Atheist manifesto. Any thoughts on it? I'm especially curious about what you think about #4. In #9 I'd like to know what religions they are talking about. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ce=message

Bollocks.

Atheism is simply the nonbelief in god(s) NOTHING ELSE is implied or may be inferred.Period.

[Modular Moog V]

I found this somewhat long article on the internet today. It's entitled the Atheist manifesto. Any thoughts on it? I'm especially curious about what you think about #4. In #9 I'd like to know what religions they are talking about. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ce=message

Bollocks.

Atheism is simply the nonbelief in god(s) NOTHING ELSE is implied or may be inferred.Period.

So atheists should never dance naked around a fire with drums, during a full moon because it feels good, and you can see what you are doing (light from the moon and all).
What a killjoy you are!

What is next? (git off my lawn)!!!!