Tristan Russell's Comments
Page 1 of 43  first | prev | next 
Mar 23, 2009 | rating: 7.4 | comments: 102
Tristan Russell Mar 27, 2009, 11:32pm EDT
John: as I've said before, personal revelation is only a justification for the person who's had the revelation. If the one surviving unicorn came to me, I'd be justified in saying that it exists. I would NOT be justified in saying you should believe that unicorns exist just because I say so (and have no proof).

Believe in a deity all you want. But don't expect other people to be convinced unless THEY also have the exact same evidence you were privy to.
Mar 23, 2009 | rating: 7.4 | comments: 102
Tristan Russell Mar 27, 2009, 3:41pm EDT
Thanks for sending me here, B.M. I can't comment on the 'Losing Your Religion' series because I haven't read all of it, but I would like to correct you, B.M. on your statement about what atheism is.

Atheism means "without" "theism"; it's a lack of a belief in a god. It does not mean "a belief that there is no god". Agnosticism and gnosticism address what you know (or claim to know) about a god. Atheism and theism address what you believe about a god. Belief and knowledge are connected, but they're not the same thing. If you can't answer the question "Do you believe in god?" with a "yes", then you're an atheist. If you say "I don't know", you're answering the wrong question -- it's not "do you know if there is a god?"...it's "do you believe?"

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know there is no god, but I don't believe any gods are real because no sufficient evidence is given for any of them.

Whenever I talk to theists, the first thing I have to do is get them to define their god. That way I can see if I agree and believe in it. So far, I haven't found anything in all the versions of what people call "god" to be believable. I'm not one of those agnostics who say "we can't ever know a god"; maybe one day we'll be able to discover such a thing. But for now -- and even IF it is real -- claiming you know a god exists is unfounded.

I can't really contribute to this discussion any more than that, since I haven't read the articles in question (I'm "agnostic" as to their content). But since John Knight, Mark, Sue, and Jerry Kays are always dropping in on my religious-based articles, I figured I'd return the favor.

It's not a party without all of us, eh?
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 23, 2009, 2:47pm EDT
I'm sorry Sue. I mean to say, "Aimee and John".

In that respect, you may be right. But the larger issue is that the Catholic Church condemns the use of condoms, period. Any chance they get, they try to lump prophylactics in with disease or just plain evilness. Still, that viewpoint has a basis in (here it comes, Aimee) ignorance. The Church's campaign on condoms is equivalent to the f undies' campaign on abstinence-only sex ed; it's demonstrably wrong and harmful.
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 22, 2009, 10:52pm EDT
Aimee and Sue: I challenge you to provide evidence for the events that "really" transpired, since you think I can only find made up stories. I find it utterly hilarious that you hold such a high standard when it comes to blogs, but you can't ask the same questions when it comes to the claims about your God. Do you ask for sources from the bible? Do you "ascertain who the speaker or writer is"? Do you take religious claims at face value? "Each faction will choose to believe the version which best suits their agenda."

Aimee: Since you bring them up, let's look at these...

"Some say they left because Nye began dissing the Bible in a disrespectful way which they could not abide."

Okay, so making fun of the talking donkeys or the water-into-wine tricks? If so, they fit the description I've already commented about. If they got made because of that, it's because they're ignorant.


"Others say he was parsing Genesis 1:16 in order to take a jab at Christians."

Gen1:16 - "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

Besides the part about the moon, we know how stars are formed. It doesn't take a God. If they got mad because of that, it's because they're ignorant.


"Others think he brought up the bible quote to make a point about religion, not science."

So scientists shouldn't talk about religion? Is it only fair if theologians do it? If he did make a point about religion, it was probably to show how some aspect of it is demonstrably wrong. If they got mad, it's because they're ignorant.


"John Knight read where Nye made an obscene gesture."
I'd like to see credible sources for each of these...especially this one. I don't have the energy to argue how childish it would be to get upset at someone flipping the bird. Sure, if he did it out of spite to be hateful to some, that's different. But if he was joking or making some point, it's hardly something to get your pious panties in a wad about.


And Chris: Yeah, I miss Sagan too. But Nye's still making the rounds, and we got great, likable guys like Neil deGrasse Tyson taking up the baton these days.
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 21, 2009, 2:25pm EDT
Sue and Aimee: The "case in point" was not the guy in the video. Are you people really that dense, or are you just trying to oppose everything I say? It was what he was talking about (which I assume you haven't heard): the Pope said that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV. THAT is based in ignorance.

I do not have to show why all Christians believe in all types of their god, because that's not the point of the article. Most probably believe out of ignorance -- that is, not knowing a certain fact or set of facts can leave a gap open in their knowledge, and it is in that gap that God can fit. Sure, not all Christians believe because doing so answers questions for them. Like Slim said, some may believe because they're wired to; they just have to. Still, I took the point of the news story at face value. Doing so, it then follows that only a literal fundamentalist could get irate because a scientist talked about physical evidence. Thus, the only way to combat this is to fix the ignorance. It's out of ignorance that someone like that would feel that way. And I suspect that you believers here are ignorant of something, and that believing in God answers that question, closes that gap, for you.

JustMe: I didn't mean to forget about the ones in the educational system who are actually doing a great job. Case in point: Bill Gates' most recent TED talk. (Sue and Aimee: please pay attention to the subject matter within the video that I'm referring to, and not to the fact that Bill Gates is an atheist.)

I also gave the link to PZ Myer's blog because it was a source for the story.
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 20, 2009, 5:30pm EDT
Aimee, my critique of that page you wanted me to read is up on my blog now. I'll tell you right now, I highly doubt it's an article I would one day write.
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 20, 2009, 2:55pm EDT
Actually, I'm finding it as far back as April of 2006. But the timing isn't important, ignorance is "outside of time".
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 20, 2009, 2:28pm EDT
Case in point.
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 20, 2009, 2:08pm EDT
Aimee: every story I've checked says the same thing, including PZ Myers' blog. The story is from September, but has been populating through the blogosphere recently and has appeared at just the time when I was writing on my own blog about fundamentalism.

It's not my job to prove these people what those people knew. I took the story at face value. From the description, they left because they were confronted with descriptions about reality that conflicted with their core beliefs. Why else would people leave a building saying "We believe in God!" without some form of self-ignorance at show?

I think the larger point here is that you believe I'm calling you ignorant, and it hurts your feelings. But as I've stated before, Aimee, I hate ignorance, not the ignorant. Ignorance means lack of knowledge; it doesn't mean being stupid. Willful ignorance with regards to basic scientific knowledge is stupid, so say I. Whether it be regarding the moon shining, the earth being flat, or Creationism, those who keep themselves from reading, learning, and understanding remain ignorant -- and a lot of them wallow in the fact.
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 20, 2009, 1:56am EDT
Michael S: "Atheists can't remember that faith is believing without seeing and that kind of self-discipline is admirable..."

No, atheists DO know what faith is, and it's anything but admirable. You having the conviction against all evidence that there's an invisible monster under your bed isn't an admirable virtue. There is nothing at all admirable about believing something -- anything -- without evidence. Actually, I highly doubt you nor anyone else can name me one other aspect of life in which faith exists.


Aimee: "You must have something more carefully reasoned to explain Christian's belief in God other than their ignorance."

Indeed, this wasn't intended to be some kind of carefully reasoned explanation, and that's the main reason why I didn't submit it to the Debate Faith group. It doesn't stand on its own as a critical analysis of how theists are ignorant. What it does do is 1) highlight supreme ignorance (how could anybody this day and age not know basic scientific truths?), and 2) draw the comparison between what it takes for such ignorance to occur and what theists have (namely, faith).
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 19, 2009, 11:49pm EDT
Fair enough, Aniko. But still, why clamor out, children in arm, screaming "We believe in GOD!"? Don't have the evidence to stand up to actual science?

Like I said, religion gets a free pass, where we can't talk about it or criticize it (like the UN wants). Why do we have to live in a world where -- in the age of internet, modern medicine, technology -- we have to censor ourselves because religious people might get offended?
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 19, 2009, 11:43pm EDT
I'll read that article, Aimee, and write about if you'd like. But you don't care what I say unless it's "Jesus, I know that I am a sinner..."
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 19, 2009, 11:40pm EDT
Aimee...what I meant by "Religion is to blame for the ignorance in Waco" was "So the story goes for the idiots in Waco, Texas, where atheist Bill Nye was literally booed during a lecture where he said that the moon reflects the sun's rays and gives off no light of its own."
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 19, 2009, 11:35pm EDT
And?

Hate the ignorance, not the ignorant.
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 19, 2009, 11:29pm EDT
Aniko: Like I said, so what if they object to science showing an aspect of their religious belief to be incorrect? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try to spread the evidence of reality because it might hurt the feelings of the religious?

Sure, there are some really smart theists. Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project is a Christian (he was walking in the woods and saw a waterfall that had frozen into three parts and because a Christian). He's a brilliant person, but when it comes to theism, he's a fucking moron. It's possible for smart people to believe stupid things, it's called compartmentalization. The point I've been making is that religion goes against critical thinking. Do I really have to make the case for that?
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 19, 2009, 11:16pm EDT
So your point is what, Sue? I'm not suggesting that theists are doomed to idiocy. The point is willful ignorance. You can't believe in a literal Genesis and understand how reality works. You certainly don't have the right to keep children from learning about how the world works just because your religion doesn't teach what the evidence shows. I'm not "giving up" on theists -- I wouldn't incite discussion on the topic with them if I thought it was useless. Self-delusion, willful ignorance and credulity can be overcome (I used to be a Pentecostal).

The people I'm talking about here knowingly keep themselves away from reality because they would rather keep their belief in their religion. I once was talking to a theist and we got to the point where he was begging me to stop the conversation because he felt his belief slipping away. That kind of willful self-shackling is the very opposite of good mental health and the antithesis to progress.
Mar 19, 2009 | rating: 8.7 | comments: 106
Tristan Russell Mar 19, 2009, 10:34pm EDT
That's right, Slim. The point is that they didn't try to understand. They didn't ask questions, or even stay for discussion. They essentially put their hands over their ears and said, "we're not listening, we're not listening, we believe in God".

@Aniko: Even if Nye brought up Genesis specifically to point out that "little flaw", does that make it wrong? The fact is that Genesis IS wrong, and the people who believe in 100% bible truth can't reconcile that with reality. Religion gets a free pass all too often, and that's just what happened here. They were confronted with truth and they want to claim "religious attack" or whatever instead of dealing with reality. They want to have their Jesus cake and eat it too.

Sue, nowhere am I claiming that atheists are somehow smarter by default. There are some dumb atheists out there. I will say that the kind of thinking (or lack thereof) that's needed to produce the claims theists make can only come, like Chuck said, from willful ignorance. Most of the people who shun faith and gullibility are more likely to not accept religion as well, because religion entails faith and not thinking for yourself.
Feb 4, 2009 | rating: 7.4 | comments: 13
Tristan Russell Mar 2, 2009, 12:04am EST
Yes, beliefs are sometimes unprovable, but you must attempt to prove the affirmative. You ask if I can prove God doesn't exist. Of course not; no one can. But I'm affirmatively saying "God" doesn't exist. In order to begin proving it doesn't exist, I'd have to define what it is. Can you prove that purple swarznills don't exist?

You raise a point that I've worked on many threads to point out. People want to believe things they can't explain. They invent an answer to something that they know nothing about so that they can know everything about it. I'm the kind of person that doesn't believe ANYTHING without sufficient reason and evidence to do so. If I do come up with a silly or ill-informed belief, I won't be the one to try to tell other people to believe it too, and I sure as hell won't attempt to get legislature on my side. Sure, you cannot use science to prove any god, because science hasn't found such a thing (but if you think you can scientifically prove your deities, please let us know). If you want to argue for something, you must back up your claims. Saying, "I believe that God told me therefore I know" is laughable in such a discussion. I realize I'm asking a lot, but I'm hoping that simply by asking in this way, the bar will be set so that people who take things on faith will see how unfounded such thinking is.
Feb 4, 2009 | rating: 8.1 | comments: 104
Tristan Russell Feb 18, 2009, 10:45pm EST
I'm sure glad you have faith in the dragons, Mark. They say that if you believe strongly enough, you'll get TWO eternal lives!
Feb 4, 2009 | rating: 8.1 | comments: 104
Tristan Russell Feb 18, 2009, 9:28pm EST
Just look at the sun, Mark! Can you not see the glory of the dragons???

It must be an exciting time for you. All your life you thought that the Hebrew God exists because it's written in a book -- but you didn't even know that the Sun Dragons manufactured the events that led to that book's compilation! They have wonderous powers. They created the people who wrote the books of the world. If you ask the dragons to show themselves to you, you'll see their glory.

I can't prove the dragons to you -- what do you want me to use, science? It therefore MUST take faith to believe in them. According to Umar, it also takes faith to NOT believe in them. I can tell you this, Mark, the Dragons will be glad you have faith in them!
Page 1 of 43  first | prev | next 
 
Tristan Russell
Oklahoma

A Small Town Atheist
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16811, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.