Have an opinion you want to share with the world?  Sound off in our Forum!
 
Home
Join and Donate
Become a Member
General Donation
Building Fund
Atheists Talk Radio Fund
The 300 Club
About MN Atheists
Bylaws
Outreach
Public Policy Positions
The Minnesota Atheists Center
Day of Reason
MN Atheists Meetup Group
Southern MN Atheists Meetup Group
FaceBook Group
MySpace Page
Member's Blogs
Media
Atheists Talk Videos
Radio Show - Podcast
Cable TV Show
Newsletter Archive
Book Reviews
Member Letters & Essays
Photos
Forum
Contact Us
Events Calendar
Get AWE Inspired

Secular Coalition for America Alerts

Action Alerts

 
 

Links

Minnesota Atheists is affiliated with the following organizations:
Freethought Links:
Church and State Separation:

Recommended e-Zines
(click on the links below to subscribe):
Overviews of about a dozen topics per issue. Published by the Institute for Humanist Studies.
  • This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Debunkings of UFOs, crop circles, miracles, etc. Published by Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society. Visit the website

Friends of MNA:

Websites of MNA Members:

Login Form






Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
feed image
What is Atheism? Jennifer Tuder on Sex Across the Curriculum Atheists Talk #002 Jan 20, 2008
Views 2100    
Favored 163
What is atheism?  How many atheists are there?  What does the public think about atheists?  How are Christians viewed by non Christians?  Also featuring a special interview with Jennifer Tuder of "Sex Across the Curriculum."
ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS STORY – JAN. 14, 2008
WHAT IS ATHEISM?
HOW MANY ATHEISTS ARE THERE?
American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2001)
HOW ARE ATHEISTS VIEWED BY THE PUBLIC?
American Mosaic Project: “Atheists as ‘Other’ ” (2006)
ATHEISM AND YOUNG PEOPLE
HOW ARE CHRISTIANS VIEWED BY YOUNG PEOPLE?
The Barna Group: A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism and Frustration with Christianity (2007)
INTERVIEW: JENNIFER TUDER “SEX ACROSS THE CURRICULUM”
AWE - Atheists Weekly E-mail list of upcoming events
SPONSORS:
 
 
Quote this article in website Favored Print Send to friend

Users' Comments (9)
Posted by Kristine, on 01-22-2008 09:55, , Guest
1. Response to "Huh"?
Broadsword, Madge didn't reply to you, but I did. In order to see a reply to your comment, click on (wait for it) "replies to this comment." That's how our 'if-then-therefore' structure works on this page.
 
» Reply to this comment...

Posted by George Francis Kane, on 01-22-2008 09:49, , Guest
2. Response to Madge Taylor
Madge Taylor wrote on 01-20-2008 15:33: "You need to make the distinction between people with no religion who really couldn't care less, and the so called rational anti-theists (the militant atheists). The militant atheists are few but vocal." 
 
The point that we were making, Madge, is that the count that you get of the atheist population varies widely depending on how the survey question is worded, who is asking the question, and how the survey sample is selected. We were examining different positions that fall within the definition of "without god belief," and you cannot ignore apatheists in such a review. 
 
If, on the other hand, the count you are looking for is "militant atheists," you may be close to a null class. I don't think I know anyone who identifies with that phrase. 
 
Later you write that "Science is no friend of the Atheist." I recommend for your consideration that a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Science showed that 72.2% stated that they disbelieve in a personal god, and an additional 20.8% expressed doubt. This survey has been repeated several times since 1916, and shows that among professional scientists, atheism and doubt have always been high, and that they are also growing.
 
» Reply to this comment...

Posted by George Francis Kane, on 01-22-2008 09:34, , Guest
3. Second response to Broadsword
Broadsword wrote on 01-20-2008 12:24: "'In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms.' The existence of a deity is outside of empiricism, and therefore cannot be proven or disproven empirically." 
 
Gödel was dealing with mathematics and deductive logic, where things are known without reference to the observed facts of the material world. In discussing the question of a god hypothesis, a starting point is to determine what type of information would be required for proof. The most desirable case would be that a god could be known a priori, without reference to facts of the world. Such a god would be a logical necessity, and demonstrable to any rational being. Several attempts have been offered, especially by medieval Christian apologists. Most famously, St. Anselm's ontological argument claimed a proof by definition, that what god is requires that he is. But every a priori proof of the existence of supernatural gods fails, because their non-existence does not lead to any logical contradiction. 
 
If a theist accepts this, he must rely on some form of demonstration from experience, and there are many. What a god-believer cannot say is that the gods are beyond all experience, because then they would be irrelevant. 
 
Examination of the god-hypothesis is very much like examining the claim of cold fusion a couple of decades ago. Physicists tried to replicate the finding, but could not. They had enough theoretical knowledge to convince them that it should not work. They refuted every counter, every new try. They reached a high level of confidence in the conclusion that cold fusion does not work. 
 
Skeptics have looked at claimed miracles, and have not found any evidence that would justify accepting claims of supernatural influence. We have pretty good ideas about why people believe in them and in gods, and are learning more about religious experiences with advances in clinical and experimental neurology. The gaps in scientific knowledge, in which theists claimed there must be divine intervention, are being closed with naturalistic explanations. 
 
Now, it could be that there are some exotic conditions that the physicists have not considered, under which cold fusion might work. If such are found, they would have to amend their conclusions. Similarly, if proof of a god were to ever happen, atheists would have to change their conclusion. But with both the cold fusion hypothesis and the god hypothesis, our current knowledge is sufficient to justify high confidence in the conclusion that the hypothesis is false.
 
» Reply to this comment...

Posted by George Francis Kane, on 01-22-2008 09:31, , Guest
4. First response to Broadsword
Broadsword wrote on 01-20-2008 12:16: "One of today's speakers said his viewpoint re: atheism was empirical.... The evidence is not all in, and, at most, one can claim agnosticism." 
 
All of our knowledge from experience is tentative, and open to correction if required by future evidence, Broadsword. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion seemed to be the "final word" for a couple of centuries, until the Lorentz Transformation equations and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity showed that they were only true at speeds that are low compared to the speed of light. In mathematics we deal with things that can be known with certainty, but for everything that is known through experience, there is always some exposure to error. For a posteriori knowledge, we should speak in terms of degrees of confidence rather than certainty. 
 
Later on you mention that a god "may not exist, but it cannot be proven, or disproven, empirically." If there is a supernatural god, especially one that is all-powerful, why should he not be able to prove that he exists? What could stop him? On the program I gave an example of proof by unquestionably supernatural appearance. But presuming that we are dealing with intractably shy gods, who does not wish to be obtrusive, people have gone off looking for them. For example, there have been numerous studies into the effects of prayer. Studies that are especially quantifiable have looked at the effect of intercessory prayer on surgical recovery. There have been several such studies, but a meta-study that examined the results of each found that prayer provided no statistically significant benefit at all. 
 
In the same way, there are studies being done all the time into reports of supernatural phenomena, but none have been able to prove that they really exist. If someone were to provide a proof of a supernatural phenomenon, that stands up to scientific investigation, he can claim the Randi prize of $1 Million, which should be a substantial motivation, and yet no one has been able to do so. 
 
If the gods never intervene in the material world in any way, then I agree with you that their existence can never be proved. But that is not the sort of god that religious people believe in. But we now have equipment that can look into the tiniest and most fleeting components of the atom, and that can look back to the dawn of time. Through time, ever-larger parts of the world are placed under continual observation. Experimental techniques are refined and resulting data is sometimes analyzed in supercomputers to find the most subtle effects. If gods ever in fact intervene into the material world, I have to think that some day we will find evidence of it. But so far, we find nothing that stands up to examination. 
 
God believers, though, typically speak of frequent supernatural intervention into their lives. I understand how they can choose to interpret every event of their lives in this way, but they lack any evidence to justify this interpretation. Whatever happens, whether helpful or harmful, they attribute to "god's will." Yet, if the basic nature of the world were that a god really does intervene continuously because of his pleasure and displeasure with the thoughts and actions of people, you would expect it to be obvious to everyone. It would be a very different world than the one we live in.
 
» Reply to this comment...

Posted by AllanW, on 01-21-2008 07:19, , Guest
5. Show; 20/01/08
Nice show again. Keep it up. But can I suggest that obvious trolls like 'Dennis' are cut-off a little more cleanl;y as they brought the pace down a little? 
 
BTW Broadsword; you may be looking for some feedback but I suggest you go to any of the myriad of 'up-their-own-ass' philosophical sites on the internet and leave these guys alone. 
 
And Madge; Nice to see you don't have your own model of reality through which facts are filtered. Keep those blinkers on! You know you'll get frightened if you take them off!
 
» Reply to this comment...

More comments...

Add your comment



mXcomment 1.0.6 © 2007-2008 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]
Atheists Talk

Amazon Recommendations

© 2008 Minnesota Atheists - Positive Atheism In Action!
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.