As an atheist that lived in Kentucky, I can say it is possible, but I'm not the type to be easily offended.
For instance, one very catholic friend of mine back then made the argument that since I have no religion, then therefore I also have no morals and have no idea what is right and wrong. (He was very completely serious).
That almost ended out friendship, since I let loose that if the only thing keeping him a good person and not raping/murdering was fear of God and going to hell, that he was a terrible person.
See, if someone is religious, that doesn't bother me. My girlfriend is sort of religious. She went to church last weekend with her grandparents. If I was with her one weekend and they asked me to come along, I'd oblige.
I recognize that a great many people need religion to provide moral guideance and it fills a void in their life. I'm not one of those people. I believe I function just fine without religion and while I can joke all day long about having no morals myself, I actually do have them. Sure, some of them have a religious base (fifth commandment) but that doesn't mean that I see those things religious in my life. Just because a good idea was used by a religion somewhere doesn't mean I don't have to completely reject said good idea.
Haven't read through the whole thread (so please forgive if it's been posted) but, according to some, the way to offend an atheist is to show them a banana.
Haven't read through the whole thread (so please forgive if it's been posted) but, according to some, the way to offend an atheist is to show them a banana.
Haven't read through the whole thread (so please forgive if it's been posted) but, according to some, the way to offend an atheist is to show them a banana.
Haven't read through the whole thread (so please forgive if it's been posted) but, according to some, the way to offend an atheist is to show them a banana.
Haven't read through the whole thread (so please forgive if it's been posted) but, according to some, the way to offend an atheist is to show them a banana.
Haven't read through the whole thread (so please forgive if it's been posted) but, according to some, the way to offend an atheist is to show them a banana.
This one's even better (worse), although this thread probably shouldn't become some ololcreationistswhoarebadatscience thread.
I cannot stop laughing. That is the greatest thing I've ever seen.
My favorite part is that he's an "engineer". I want to be an engineer; this man is of my breed. I'm glad all engineers are rational and pragmatic and good at things like basic understing of...anything.
Aye, saying that "Science is just a belief" (as someone said above), or other such illogical nonsense, would probably offend an atheist... well, it'd offend anyone who thinks rationally, but that's another issue.
Atheism =/= Science
Rejecting the notion of a maker doesn't mean you suddenly learn everything from Keppler's Laws to Okazaki Fragments. I'm amazed at how many atheists I've met who think they're scientific just because of their lack of belief, even if they haven't touched a science textbook since middle school.
Aye, saying that "Science is just a belief" (as someone said above), or other such illogical nonsense, would probably offend an atheist... well, it'd offend anyone who thinks rationally, but that's another issue.
Atheism =/= Science
Rejecting the notion of a maker doesn't mean you suddenly learn everything from Keppler's Laws to Okazaki Fragments. I'm amazed at how many atheists I've met who think they're scientific just because of their lack of belief, even if they haven't touched a science textbook since middle school.
I define being "scientific" as applying the scientific method to problem solving in various forms. I suspect a fair number of atheists do do this, but obviously elephants legs etc etc. Bye....
Yes thats great, but thats still not science. You could just as easily "use the scientific method" in a variety of religious matters as well. You can't say you used "science" to come to an atheist conclusion because science doesn't give two shits about something that can't be tested. I can't exactly use science to prove I should vote for Obama either, its outside the realm of science.
Extra points: The scientific method was developed by a monk.
Yes it is possible to offend someone as an atheist. The best example I can think of is to say someone is immoral based on them being an atheist. Note this is different then saying someone is immoral. Generally to say someone is immoral is to base it off of their actions while to say they are immoral because they are an atheist is to base it off of a belief/dis-belief. This implies that someone that subscribes to atheism is incapable
of being moral due to a belief/dis-belief which would be much the same as saying someone that is Christian/Jewish/etc.. is incapable of being moral.
I think that one offends me the most because to think about it rationally the opposite is actually true. As an atheist I generally try to do the right thing because I believe in being moral even though it makes life more difficult and provides me with no personal benefit. When a religious person does the right thing they do it to influence their god in a positive way towards them instead of a negative one so that when they die they will get into the good afterlife. Basically they do good things to benefit themselves and don't do bad things because they are afraid of screwing themselves over. In this sense being an atheist makes me a more morale person then any religious person could ever hope to be. Needless to say religious people get really pissed when I explain this to them after they accuse me of being immoral due to being an atheist.
I give to charity, donate belongings, or help people, because I want to genuinely help the person in need - I don't give a shit what some supposed dude in the sky thinks of it.
I give to charity, donate belongings, or help people, because I want to genuinely help the person in need - I don't give a shit what some supposed dude in the sky thinks of it.
I'm going to start regularly donating blood actually, because it's compatible with a wide range of people.
That plasma donation stuff? Seems to make some alright cash on the side, plus I get to help people. May sound a little bit greedier on my part, but I'm an atheist, what can I say.
Something I don't get is refusal to donate organs after death. I just really don't understand how people can have a problem with it. Well no - I kinda see where they're coming from, it just doesn't make sense.
Something I don't get is refusal to donate organs after death. I just really don't understand how people can have a problem with it. Well no - I kinda see where they're coming from, it just doesn't make sense.
They should just make organ donation opt-out instead of opt-in.
Something I don't get is refusal to donate organs after death. I just really don't understand how people can have a problem with it. Well no - I kinda see where they're coming from, it just doesn't make sense.
Organ donor is not on my drivers license. My mother however knows my wishes and were something horrible to happen to me my body would be divided up and give to lots of people so that they may all come together and reform me. Like a giant fleshy voltron.
Also some hospitals if they know your an organ donor wont take certain measures to save you that might damage the organs you wanted to donate. My mother was a trauma nurse for over 10 years and said keep it off the license and just let me know what you want donated.
Something I don't get is refusal to donate organs after death. I just really don't understand how people can have a problem with it. Well no - I kinda see where they're coming from, it just doesn't make sense.
They should just make organ donation opt-out instead of opt-in.
Problem solved in like 2 seconds.
Many religious groups would shit a brick.
You don't like it, your free to opt out. No ones stopping you.
Something I don't get is refusal to donate organs after death. I just really don't understand how people can have a problem with it. Well no - I kinda see where they're coming from, it just doesn't make sense.
The other day, I became an organ donor with the renewal of my driver's license, and my semi-religious parents nearly shat a brick.
Aye, saying that "Science is just a belief" (as someone said above), or other such illogical nonsense, would probably offend an atheist... well, it'd offend anyone who thinks rationally, but that's another issue.
Atheism =/= Science
Rejecting the notion of a maker doesn't mean you suddenly learn everything from Keppler's Laws to Okazaki Fragments. I'm amazed at how many atheists I've met who think they're scientific just because of their lack of belief, even if they haven't touched a science textbook since middle school.
I define being "scientific" as applying the scientific method to problem solving in various forms. I suspect a fair number of atheists do do this, but obviously elephants legs etc etc. Bye....
Yes thats great, but thats still not science. You could just as easily "use the scientific method" in a variety of religious matters as well. You can't say you used "science" to come to an atheist conclusion because science doesn't give two shits about something that can't be tested. I can't exactly use science to prove I should vote for Obama either, its outside the realm of science.
Extra points: The scientific method was developed by a monk.
The scientific method easily comes to the atheist conclusion, because the atheist conclusion does not purport to know there is no god.
While I'd be one to agree that anyway that claims because they don't believe in God they somehow have a greater grasp of science than the average Christian et al. is making a fundamental error, that is not to say that one cannot show an abiding respect for science and scientific methodology.
This really comes down to parsing the many varieties and sub strata of Atheist, as someone pointed out their atheistic religions, Wicca and the like wherein no belief is theology is expressed, but belief in nonscientific, non-material, non-corporeal entities or influences are. For the time being let's use Atheism in the colloquial sense, Non-believer, humanist and secular.
The reason why the modern Atheist movement is so strongly identified with science or a respect of science, is the rise of skepticism, even if it is not called that. Many atheists seem to, basing this only from the testimony of notable atheists, in my life, in public arenas and my own experience approach life with a skeptical mindset. That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if such evidence cannot be mustered, then it can be assumed not to exist. Science deals with what can be tested and proven, and notions of the Deity, lie beyond that scope.
Not knowing the intricacies of fields of science doesn't make one unscientific, it makes them not a scientist, one can live with an abiding respect for science and scientist without practicing actual science. Does the average atheist have more scientific knowledge? Perhaps, but that may do to the fact they're is likely a lot of overlap between the Atheist and Science circles in the Venn diagram, but one does not necessitate the other.
Why the modern atheist would be offended by the claim that science is belief is because unlike belief, science is what can be proven, in the natural world. Science is utterly divorced from belief. Believing in something does not make it real, if the science proves otherwise.
HF-kun is right, Science and Atheism are not the same, in any context. But, if one takes the skeptical viewpoint that something that cannot be proven, cannot be assumed not to exist, then Science points in the direction of lack of god. Science can't prove the lack of something, even the creator, but if the invisible dragon has no weight, no mass, can phase through matter undetected, breathes fire that doesn't burn and leaves no evidence of its presence, then it would more rational to assume that there is no dragon. Credit to Sagan for the mangled analogy.
DHS on
"Grip 'em up, grip 'em, grip 'em good, said the Gryphon... to the pig."
People don't become organ donors because in the back of your head that little voice says "maybe they'll just unplug you because they really want your liver and heart!"
Those people seem to be more pessimistic than I am.
People don't become organ donors because in the back of your head that little voice says "maybe they'll just unplug you because they really want your liver and heart!"
To a certain extent that's true; they won't outright kill you, but two of my aunts are nurses and they told us the same thing Detharin's mom told him.
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't still be an organ donor, it just means you shouldn't go announcing it to everybody with a medical license.
I'd be surprised if medical staff did things differently just because someone said they were an organ donor. Well I wouldn't be, but I'd be surprised if someone hadn't been sued and/or imprisoned over it by now.
That sort of fear though is the main reason it's worth avoiding a compulsory system. People will avoid getting medical help because they think they will be bumped off for their liver, and so die of something that could easily have been prevented. Plus it puts all sorts of conflicting demands on staff, which isn't good.
And then you have the whole 'when do you define death' thing, which is conveniently set to allow organ-donation in most cases. Understandably it makes ill people lying in hospital nervous.
Personally though I want my body to be dissected by medical students, on the condition that a gold coin is hidden somewhere in me. Finders-keepers. They should do a thorough job...
I'd be surprised if medical staff did things differently just because someone said they were an organ donor. Well I wouldn't be, but I'd be surprised if someone hadn't been sued and/or imprisoned over it by now.
That sort of fear though is the main reason it's worth avoiding a compulsory system. People will avoid getting medical help because they think they will be bumped off for their liver, and so die of something that could easily have been prevented. Plus it puts all sorts of conflicting demands on staff, which isn't good.
And then you have the whole 'when do you define death' thing, which is conveniently set to allow organ-donation in most cases. Understandably it makes ill people lying in hospital nervous.
Personally though I want my body to be dissected by medical students, on the condition that a gold coin is hidden somewhere in me. Finders-keepers. They should do a thorough job...
"And it turned out it was under his tongue the WHOLE time!"
Posts
For instance, one very catholic friend of mine back then made the argument that since I have no religion, then therefore I also have no morals and have no idea what is right and wrong. (He was very completely serious).
That almost ended out friendship, since I let loose that if the only thing keeping him a good person and not raping/murdering was fear of God and going to hell, that he was a terrible person.
I recognize that a great many people need religion to provide moral guideance and it fills a void in their life. I'm not one of those people. I believe I function just fine without religion and while I can joke all day long about having no morals myself, I actually do have them. Sure, some of them have a religious base (fifth commandment) but that doesn't mean that I see those things religious in my life. Just because a good idea was used by a religion somewhere doesn't mean I don't have to completely reject said good idea.
As they offend me, as an atheist, they should be abolished.
Paradox!
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related
This one's even better (worse), although this thread probably shouldn't become some ololcreationistswhoarebadatscience thread.
My favorite part is that he's an "engineer". I want to be an engineer; this man is of my breed. I'm glad all engineers are rational and pragmatic and good at things like basic understing of...anything.
Atheism =/= Science
Rejecting the notion of a maker doesn't mean you suddenly learn everything from Keppler's Laws to Okazaki Fragments. I'm amazed at how many atheists I've met who think they're scientific just because of their lack of belief, even if they haven't touched a science textbook since middle school.
Yes thats great, but thats still not science. You could just as easily "use the scientific method" in a variety of religious matters as well. You can't say you used "science" to come to an atheist conclusion because science doesn't give two shits about something that can't be tested. I can't exactly use science to prove I should vote for Obama either, its outside the realm of science.
Extra points: The scientific method was developed by a monk.
The Duhem-Quine thesis demonstrates that no hypothesis can be tested!
of being moral due to a belief/dis-belief which would be much the same as saying someone that is Christian/Jewish/etc.. is incapable of being moral.
I think that one offends me the most because to think about it rationally the opposite is actually true. As an atheist I generally try to do the right thing because I believe in being moral even though it makes life more difficult and provides me with no personal benefit. When a religious person does the right thing they do it to influence their god in a positive way towards them instead of a negative one so that when they die they will get into the good afterlife. Basically they do good things to benefit themselves and don't do bad things because they are afraid of screwing themselves over. In this sense being an atheist makes me a more morale person then any religious person could ever hope to be. Needless to say religious people get really pissed when I explain this to them after they accuse me of being immoral due to being an atheist.
That plasma donation stuff? Seems to make some alright cash on the side, plus I get to help people. May sound a little bit greedier on my part, but I'm an atheist, what can I say.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
They should just make organ donation opt-out instead of opt-in.
Problem solved in like 2 seconds.
Organ donor is not on my drivers license. My mother however knows my wishes and were something horrible to happen to me my body would be divided up and give to lots of people so that they may all come together and reform me. Like a giant fleshy voltron.
Also some hospitals if they know your an organ donor wont take certain measures to save you that might damage the organs you wanted to donate. My mother was a trauma nurse for over 10 years and said keep it off the license and just let me know what you want donated.
Fixed.
You don't like it, your free to opt out. No ones stopping you.
While I'd be one to agree that anyway that claims because they don't believe in God they somehow have a greater grasp of science than the average Christian et al. is making a fundamental error, that is not to say that one cannot show an abiding respect for science and scientific methodology.
This really comes down to parsing the many varieties and sub strata of Atheist, as someone pointed out their atheistic religions, Wicca and the like wherein no belief is theology is expressed, but belief in nonscientific, non-material, non-corporeal entities or influences are. For the time being let's use Atheism in the colloquial sense, Non-believer, humanist and secular.
The reason why the modern Atheist movement is so strongly identified with science or a respect of science, is the rise of skepticism, even if it is not called that. Many atheists seem to, basing this only from the testimony of notable atheists, in my life, in public arenas and my own experience approach life with a skeptical mindset. That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if such evidence cannot be mustered, then it can be assumed not to exist. Science deals with what can be tested and proven, and notions of the Deity, lie beyond that scope.
Not knowing the intricacies of fields of science doesn't make one unscientific, it makes them not a scientist, one can live with an abiding respect for science and scientist without practicing actual science. Does the average atheist have more scientific knowledge? Perhaps, but that may do to the fact they're is likely a lot of overlap between the Atheist and Science circles in the Venn diagram, but one does not necessitate the other.
Why the modern atheist would be offended by the claim that science is belief is because unlike belief, science is what can be proven, in the natural world. Science is utterly divorced from belief. Believing in something does not make it real, if the science proves otherwise.
HF-kun is right, Science and Atheism are not the same, in any context. But, if one takes the skeptical viewpoint that something that cannot be proven, cannot be assumed not to exist, then Science points in the direction of lack of god. Science can't prove the lack of something, even the creator, but if the invisible dragon has no weight, no mass, can phase through matter undetected, breathes fire that doesn't burn and leaves no evidence of its presence, then it would more rational to assume that there is no dragon. Credit to Sagan for the mangled analogy.
And that must be pretty damn pessimistic.
To a certain extent that's true; they won't outright kill you, but two of my aunts are nurses and they told us the same thing Detharin's mom told him.
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't still be an organ donor, it just means you shouldn't go announcing it to everybody with a medical license.
That sort of fear though is the main reason it's worth avoiding a compulsory system. People will avoid getting medical help because they think they will be bumped off for their liver, and so die of something that could easily have been prevented. Plus it puts all sorts of conflicting demands on staff, which isn't good.
And then you have the whole 'when do you define death' thing, which is conveniently set to allow organ-donation in most cases. Understandably it makes ill people lying in hospital nervous.
Personally though I want my body to be dissected by medical students, on the condition that a gold coin is hidden somewhere in me. Finders-keepers. They should do a thorough job...
make assumptions and and watch them get pissed off