New / Atheism, in the PT? starts here .

Archive for Atheism-PT (the blog) '

The skeptic in the room (music)

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

This is beautiful. :) Great lyrics, and great examples.

YouTube Preview Image

I love the optimism of the conclusion, too. Already several people have asked me, because I write about these issues (although I have done less in recent times, partly walking more busy with my new blog theme "geeky", Winterdrake ), if I think (sometimes with an attitude of "you'll be so naive?") that I write this blog, and what others wrote already in the past, ever going to make someone change their mind, because 1) people in general do not, point, 2) are especially difficult religious and dogmatic, often treating their beliefs as "taboo", and 3) if they themselves admit that it is the use of reason that have their beliefs, rational arguments are not ever going to affect the .

All this is largely true. But yes, if indeed you can not achieve the fundamentalist fanatics, there are also believers "on the fence", which began to doubt the beliefs they were raised from babies, but still have no idea to get rid completely them is an option, it is possible to be an atheist (or any form of "non-believer") without this make us a) immoral monsters, and b) depressed people with lives cold, gray and without purpose. Sometimes, a simple example can make a difference. Other times, it may be an argument.

Likewise, it is possible to pass through here who think that believers come to faith in a rational manner, respecting the reasoning and logic 1 . Unfortunately, in more than one year of existence this blog, I am still waiting.), And perhaps reconsider their beliefs when confronted with the fact that the reasoning and logic are incompatible with such beliefs. Yes, there is no doubt that many will choose to reject the reasoning and logic, rejecting the mind ... but it is possible that not all do. And a person free himself of his beliefs (which told me that ever happened in another blog, years ago) is already good , has made ​​it all worthwhile.

  1. indeed, loved one day have some comments here believer can argue with facts and logic, rather than simply "preach" to quote the Bible CAPS (which obviously is more convincing), threatening me with Pascal's Wager, or try to psychoanalyze me for talking about these issues ("Obviously, you need to feel superior ... oh, and you are an atheist because you hate God because of a bad experience in childhood!") [ ]

At the Nutty 189.69.21.176 ...

Thursday, December 9, 2010

... Please stop making comments completely insane and "rambling", full of long paragraphs in capital letters, totally devoid of content, and without being related to the theme of posts. 8 And in less than a day.

It is obvious that such comments will be deleted, since 1) violate the rules for comments , and 2) do not say anything (and notice I do not say "no interest" or "not correct" is nothing at all). But are bothersome.

I keep waiting in this blog, the first Comment minimally coherent part of any believer. "Consistent" here means to present their position and justify it. Is that so difficult? Saying "you're wrong on X because Y" or even "believe X because Y"? Balls in a blog in English appeared from time to time as well. What happens to the believers and Brazilian Portuguese? They are so obsessed with copy & paste of bizarre verbal diarrhea? : (

Response to two critical

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

I received yesterday and today, two criticisms of this blog via Twitter, which I answered, needing a 7 tweets. But I want to answer them here as well, with a little more space compared to Twitter, and so that the answers are available on the blog, since it is possible that the criticism in question make sense for other visitors in the future.

The first is this: that the site name is incorrect, because atheism is merely the absence of belief in a god or gods, and what I do here is "anti-religious activism."

For that, yes, it is true that the strict definition of atheism is that, but it is also valid to see something in a more lactate. For me and for many , atheism is associated with skepticism, humanism and rationality, and the site is dedicated to (among other things) to promote these concepts. "Www.ateismo-humanism, skepticism-and-rational-pt.com" would be too long :) , And the idea of the name of a site is not to be descriptive, it's just a title, a "brand", a designation.

The second criticism is that "something is to criticize the acts done in the name of a religion, or through it, but put everything into the same bag is wrong."

I think here the author of the review is to confuse a) my criticism of acts and institutions, where only the authors clearly critical of the acts and / or members of the institutions in question, 2) logical argument against religious beliefs themselves, irrationality, " wishful thinking ", etc.. in that, yes, I am criticizing the beliefs of many people who never hurt anyone about them, but to criticize beliefs - a very" intimate "as they are - is not an attack! It is not even a conviction. It is a simple "you're wrong because ...", as for any other subject would be accepted (by agreeing or disagreeing) with no problems.

When I argue against the "logic" of certain beliefs or religious arguments (eg, "God must exist, otherwise how does the universe exist", or Pascal's Wager, or mention the fact that the belief of 99% believers to be just the product of an accident of geography, or criticize the lack of skepticism and rationality of someone), I am not "attacking" or condemn anyone, I'm just criticizing ideas that I consider wrong, justifying my criticism with facts and logic (which may well be wrong, it is noted). Just as I am happy to tell me I'm wrong in anything.

What is not accepted is that religious beliefs to themselves require a special position, untouchable, beyond reproach, or that these beliefs become inseparable from the believers themselves, so that any criticism of a belief or idea is viewed as a personal attack on all believers. This not only makes no sense, as it is cowardly - is somehow an admission that religious beliefs and ideas are not able to "come out fighting," to demonstrate logically consistent, to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and which therefore need special protection, almost criminalizing (in Muslim theocracies to take the "almost") the mere act of the question or criticize.

And for the believers to be ready to personally offended by a simple criticism of their beliefs and ideas: they're really confident in respect of them, would not react well. Rather, they were ready to "go it" ideas, confident in having the facts and logic on your side, no need to require protection or "respect" special for your beliefs simply because they are religious beliefs. And this should make you think a little ...

The return of the revenge of the FAQ

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Yes, as I thought the FAQ Atheism is not "just". It was anticipated that eventually I remember (or be confronted with) more questions / statements often made, and recently I came across two more. A comment in a very silly of a believer in Catholicism Portal (post a month already), added another on a blog in Planet Atheism , and one that I just remembered, but I saw a lot in the past.

Today I am a little busy, but I hope to address this in the coming days. But I have to mention the issues, over:

1 - "atheism / materialism does not explain the love / friendship / good and evil / poetry / beauty / irrational numbers in mathematics / <another abstracto> example of human concept, then they are wrong / God exists!"

2 - "That your atheism is merely a phase of rebellion, because, deep down, everyone knows that God exists." (Like this entry , but not quite the same thing, the focus here is " deep down everyone knows ").

3 - "'Atheist'? Do not you mean agnostic? Atheism does not imply a dogmatic certainty about something we can not know? And not just better to be agnostic, 'just in case'? "


Again, if 1) as believers, have any questions that I have not addressed in the FAQ , or 2) as atheists, remember to questions posed by believers in conversations with you, just comment here.

EDIT: one more:

4 - "Atheists today are so militant and fanatical as the believers!"

Atheism FAQ: The End (for now)

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

And so ends the Atheism FAQ ... for now. It is possible that in future any more questions give me these to memory, or note a reasonable number of repetitions of the same question / statement in comments to posts in order to justify spending the current 24 entries.

For anyone who has been surprised at the speed that the FAQ was written, I have to confess something: almost half of it was written in English, for me, here: Atheism FAQ . Translating is faster than "create" ... and I write relatively quickly, and walk with some spare time at work. Even so, expand or improve many of the entries, since most of them were written in 2007, and a person naturally evolves over time. In the end, more than half of the FAQ was written now, the rest was translated (with improvements, clarifications, etc..) Of the original entries.

Maybe one day have the patience to translate the new entries to English, and thus be added another FAQ. :)

Thus, the average posts per day will likely decrease from today (can breathe a sigh of relief). Especially because I've been very focused just on this blog, to the detriment of others (there are projects that I want to raise, such as a right of personal development blog). But, of course, will continue to have news here - both my ramblings, news and comments related to this issue.

If, as believers, have a question that has not been answered in the FAQ (which is not an insult or a "mouth" child), or alternatively, as atheists, remembering a frequent question or statement on the part of believers to which had a joke answer, feel free to comment.

Next up: Atheism FAQ

Monday, February 15, 2010

Today, and over the coming days, will be prepared an FAQ about atheism here: basically, a list of questions (often made ​​by believers, often in the form of objections), and their answers. Each pair question / answer will be a post, which usually appear on the blog, but there is also a page "index" of them (with links, of course), in the sidebar of the blog.

The idea is when, in a post on any related matter, any believer, ignoring the post itself, those comments do you think are incredibly unique and able to make any atheist unanswered, such as "why do you hate God?" Or "as can you be an atheist, if you can not prove that God does not exist ", or, soooo original," if I do not believe I'm wrong and nothing happens, but you're wrong if you have an eternity of suffering, therefore, more worth believing, "I can simply reply with a link to the response in question, and save time and effort.

Ideally, potential reviewers will read the FAQ before commenting, so not to repeat what his 20 colleagues said the last idea ... very naive on my part, I know, after all this is the Internet. : P

"If you do not believe, why you care so much about the subject?"

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Or more specifically:

"If you do not believe in God, so why write about it? Why write so much, spend so much effort and Latin with something you do not believe me? I do not believe in Father Christmas, but never create a blog to tell - of hundreds of different ways - that Santa Claus does not exist ... "

Having said so, the criticism seems to make sense, right? :)

The comparison that I can do in response, is illiteracy, or, more precisely, the fight against it. You (yes, you there) you're not, I think, really concerned about the issue of illiteracy in the country / world (although, unlike religion, probably not hesitate to say that reducing it is a good idea). Not affect you directly. You are not illiterate people around you will almost certainly also are not, and if you have kids of course want them to learn to read, but it is not a relevant issue. There is, in short, your concern. It's not something you ever think, unless you read or hear a rail related news.

However, despite your lack of this direct interest, I bet you did not challenge the legitimacy of the existence of an organization - or even a single person - dedicated to fighting illiteracy.

If you meet a person involved in a campaign to combat illiteracy, you will not get to laugh in her face, telling him "you have concern that silly! You already know how to read, why do you care about this issue? If you yourself are not illiterate, and illiteracy is that you can annoy or even care? "

The cause of combating illiteracy may not be yours (and do not have to be in any way), but not to criticize the other, I bet. That is certainly not going to write a blog or create a site or an organization to combat illiteracy ... almost certainly not going to read or participate in one of these site ... but you will not criticize the legitimacy of such a site or organization exists because not? If by chance you're one stop site of these, I bet you will not leave there a comment that the author is a nutcase / fanatic because, after all, already know how to read - what do you care that others do not know?

And besides, you will not (unless you are, sorry to say, an idiot) say that, as there are much bigger problems in the world that illiteracy is not a legitimate person to care for this problem and try to do something to solve it. The typical "for little children starving to death, and you would you mind it?!?" Is something absurdly arrogant. Is that you, nor I, nor anyone has the moral authority to tell another person: "This here is the biggest problem in the world, so it's stupid / immoral / whatever concern yourself with any other, while it exists."

Now, I think - this is another war, and I can be right or wrong, but one way or another that depends on the facts of reality - that religion is a much bigger problem in the world than illiteracy. I will not say here my reasons for thinking this (just read other posts), but the question is that I think. Hence I care the issue and want to do something.

This does not define me. It is not the "cause of my life" (after all, blogs have since at least 2004, and this only created in 2010), is not the most important thing in it. I have interests, concerns and "causes" that are most important to me than this. But do not tell me it is not legitimate to import me with this issue, and that doing so makes me a "fanatic", a "nutcase who spends his days telling the world that does not believe in the Easter Bunny," or the like.

Bem-vindos/as to Atheism-EN

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Some information:

  • All posts prior to this were written by me (Dehumanizer), over several years, in my personal blog, The Oysters will dominate the World! . The original versions are still there, with their comments, which did not copy here because the authors do not explicitly of the same duplication of their comments in a second blog.
  • Eventually comments will automatically be closed for posts older than X days (I'm thinking of 60), since these are almost always automated spam. But as the blog has just been released, and it is possible that some visitors to read old posts for the first time and they want to answer right now (and indefinitely) comments are allowed on all posts.
  • Several parts of the site, as detailed rules for comments (the oysters are copied from existing) and a FAQ about atheism, not to mention the obvious (the theme) will be developed in the coming days.
  • You should not need to say it, but considering most of the answers I had in another blog ... if you want to respond, do it in a courteous, polite and rational. Respond to the post in question, it is possible to say where I'm wrong and why, instead of doing what was "our daily bread" in oysters:
    • personal attacks;
    • not critical to what I wrote, but the simple fact of having done so (basically a "shut up, you do not have the right to write / t care about that"), such as "so much written about this, is because you are as fanatical as they, or you have some childhood trauma ... "
    • "Strawman attacks," that is, putting words in my mouth ("what you want but it is ...") and then responding to them, rather than actually wrote.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
This work by Dehumanizer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal .