"Rise of the Godless"

Here is a brief but wonderful video, courtesy of the National Journal Online.

It was released several days before the recent American Religious Identification Survey—conducted by the Program on Public Values at Trinity College.

Diagoras- the 1st Confirmed Atheist?

The ancient Greek poet/philosopher Diagoras of Melos (5th Century B.C.E.) might be regarded as history's earliest known confirmed Atheist. Historical evidence shows that Diagoras wasn't afraid to speak his mind regarding his atheism.

Though information on Diagoras is somewhat scanty, he was documented by Aristophanes, Cicero, and others. In fact, Diagoras' giving offense to others by rejecting "the Gods" is the one point about him that historians can be certain on. According to Athenagoras, "he made the downright assertion that god does not exist at all."

Diagoras appears to have been very bold, witty, and unapologetic about his lack of belief in deities. From historian Jennifer Michael Hecht:

"The poet Diagoras of Melos was perhaps the most famous atheist of the fifth century. Although he did not write about atheism, anecdotes about his unbelief suggest he was self-confident, almost teasing, and very public. He revealed the secret rituals of the Eleusinian mystery religion to everyone and "thus made them ordinary," that is, he purposefully demystified a cherished secret rite, apparently to provoke his contemporaries into thought. In another famous story, a friend pointed out an expensive display of votive gifts and said, "You think the gods have no care for man? Why, you can see from all these votive pictures here how many people have escaped the fury of storms at sea by praying to the gods who have brought them safe to harbor." To which Diagoras replied, "Yes, indeed, but where are the pictures of all those who suffered shipwreck and perished in the waves?" A good question. Diagoras was indicted for profaning the mysteries, but escaped."

According to the Swedish historian Stefan Stenuud, Diagoras was expelled from Athens in 411 B.C.E. for attacking religion. Stenuud also documents events that may have led to Diagoras' atheism:

"According to Sextus Empiricus, Diagoras became an atheist when an enemy of his perjured himself in court and got away with it. There are some variations in other sources to this anecdote, though not changing its moral content – immorality seems to go unpunished, so how can there be any gods in the sense of watchers over human virtue?"

None of Diagoras' writings seem to have survived, unfortunately for us infidels...

Mark Tiborsky, the Cleveland Freethinkers

Even an atheist would find the miracle in a pregnant woman dying

Thank you Mr. Daly for speaking for me.

The article starts, "Even and atheist would say some sort of higher power was at work..." and then describes a crowd of strangers who came together to lift a school bus off of a pregnant woman. And even a Jew would say Jesus were at work. Here we have the classic, flip side of the "no atheists in foxholes," cliche.

"From where?" the local man speculates about the origin of the ability of these people to all come together in an act of compassion. "We all know where, but we don't always speak of it." From the set up of this article, the quote implies that the man on the street is referring to God, but the rest of the quote casts ambiguity upon that conclusion; " Goodness, goodness and love." Goodness and love, two characteristics of human beings at their best, no higher power required, but sold separately to those convinced they need it.

This story appears to be the typical, "something bad happened, then people worked really hard and something good happened, sha-zam, a miracle occurred story but it's not.

First the rescue of the mother is not the actual miracle. She died! The actual miracle is that hard-working and skilled medical professionals saved the unborn baby, just like another baby of a killed pregnant woman had been saved 14 years ago. Is it really unusual for a baby to be rescued from a critically injured woman late in her pregnancy?

What an insult to the people who tried to rescue this woman and to the doctors who saved the baby. They deserve the credit. It's no "miracle" that the average person would be decent enough to help lift a bus off a pregnant woman. That is, unless you really think mankind is fundamentally evil, as many religious traditions do. (Or that you can't expect people in on "this corner" to be decent people.) As one of the commenters said, "No Mr. Daly, an atheist like me would say that someone's mom wouldn't end up under a bus, if a God ruled over the planet."

ETA- Read this article that argues how lucky this baby is because he wasn't one of the millions of babies whose mother isn't crushed to death by a bus before it was even born.

Three Points of Atheism

In a recent Cleveland Freethinkers discussion thread, I attempted to present three points of evidence on which I base my atheism.

Joining me in this part of the discussion (which has not concluded as of yet) are Paul, an Agnostic (as far as I know)- and Michael (CFT's Blogmaster), an Atheist like myself. Both Paul and Michael gave their analysis on each of the three points.

Here is what ensued... (Mark blue, Paul red, Michael black)

1) The distinct and obvious lack of ANY empirical evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being (all hearsay & manipulated science are ruled out).

1) I agree with the above because it is true. However if we flip the coin we have: The distinct and obvious lack of ANY empirical evidence for the non-existence of a Supreme Being etc....

1) The argument of evidence, or lack thereof, in defense or critique of god, is one that I feel very strongly about, and on that I personally believe best illustrates the nature of the debate. A person who claims that the lack of evidence of non existence can be construed as possible evidence of existence is revealing them self to be guilty of wanting that existence to be true, to the extent that they are willing to reject any argument that conflicts with that desire. Desire does not have any influence over reality, and as such cannot be used in defense of a position.

2) Being human myself, I know of the human mind's propensity for falling prey to both fear of the unknown and wishful thinking.

2) We can wish there is a God and we can wish there isn't a God. This statement proves nothing other than human beings can wish. It doesn't add anything credible to whether or not God does or does not exist. It simply levels the conversation to one of choice!

2) As I said previously, desire does not have any influence over reality. You clearly recognize that thinking along these lines reduces the argument to one of choice- I have to ask, why then should we dismiss the significance of choice in defense of the the god hypothesis? I think we can all agree that we are, by nature, atheist at birth, needing to be influenced by our environments and families in order to embrace any understanding of a higher power. Why cannot it be argued that those who believe in a higher power are doing out of no more compelling motivation than their own selfish desires? Why is the natural position, one of atheistic agnosticism, the position that must do all the intellectual heavy lifting?

3) The observable, measurable natural universe is capable of self-organization, self-regulation, and self-replication within the framework of nature itself- no "intelligent designer" needed!

3) Says who? You! A person can say: The observable ............of nature itself needs an intelligent designer. Your statement is faith based because you can't prove it. There are colors the human eye cannot see and sounds we can't hear. Because we can't see or hear a thing with our five senses does not mean it doesn't exist! Therefore something could be standing next to us made of a color we can't see, speaking to us in a range we can't hear! I'm a philosopher but I'm also a realist and admit what I can't prove to be true or false.

3) I have to point out that you have not addressed Mark's statement with your comment, but rather suggested that he makes it out of faith. I agree with Mark's position that the natural world functions without intervention, and that there is no omnipotent, invisible hand manipulating things in our absence. I disagree with your assessment of that position being a faith claim. As I understand it, a faith claim has it's origins in the human mind, not in the observable natural world. We can, and have, and do, and will, for our entire lives, be able to observe and interpret and manipulate with great effect the machinations of the natural world. This is no faith claim. I can plant a seed, give it water and light, and in time it will grow into a adult specimen of a plant. If I planted a sunflower seed, I could have faith that it would grow into a pear tree, but the reality of nature dictates that things operate independently of our thoughts and desires, and that I would be disappointed with the outcome, as every person is who bases their faith outside of what is real, determined through observation, reason, and experimentation. god is not obervable, his existence cannot be proved through experimentation (I will argue that is have been disproved through experimentation), and the very notion of it's existence is unreasonable (though understandable). Therefore, god cannot be real.

MT

Atheism and Logic

Donning the mantel of Free Thinker or simply thinker or scientist bears with it with significant responsibility. An article published not long ago talks about prominent atheists Scott Atran, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others who seem to forego long held principles of logic. See Disproving the Existence of God.