Comments on: Welcome to Daylight Atheism http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Tony Ryan - Coffee Loving Skeptic http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-69030 Tony Ryan - Coffee Loving Skeptic Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:13:15 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-69030 Only found this site today. It's fantastic. I'll be referencing it in the future, so thanks in advance! (I will, of course, credit all sources :D ) Only found this site today. It's fantastic. I'll be referencing it in the future, so thanks in advance! (I will, of course, credit all sources :D )

]]> By: Janet Masters http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-68528 Janet Masters Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:49:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-68528 Stumbled across this web site, via AlterNet, after reading your most recent article. I am a life time atheist 70 years old. I was a closet atheist until about 10 years ago. The present trend is in it's infancy. It's great to see so many contributors to reason and logic. Stumbled across this web site, via AlterNet, after reading your most recent article. I am a life time atheist 70 years old. I was a closet atheist until about 10 years ago. The present trend is in it's infancy. It's great to see so many contributors to reason and logic.

]]> By: freepepe http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-66556 freepepe Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:13:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-66556 When one is an Atheist (like me)one uses logic and reason. When one is "born again" religious (like I used to be for a very long time)one uses the emotions and feelings through "faith" which is believing in something that can not be vertified as fact. It's the same "faith" our parents used on us to make us believe in Santa Claus. If any "belief" that can not be vertified as being real or a fact, it is then a false "belief". It is a fictional belief. It is a Myth. I realize now, that "believers" of their "faith", are people who NEED "something or "somebody", outside of their being, to give them "a purpose" for their life. Worst of all, they "say", they can't wait to die, so that they can have "eternal life". The reason I say they "say", is because I never met a "believer" who was dying to get to heaven! When one is an Atheist (like me)one uses logic and reason. When one is "born again" religious (like I used to be for a very long time)one uses the emotions and feelings through "faith" which is believing in something that can not be vertified as fact. It's the same "faith" our parents used on us to make us believe in Santa Claus. If any "belief" that can not be vertified as being real or a fact, it is then a false "belief". It is a fictional belief. It is a Myth. I realize now, that "believers" of their "faith", are people who NEED "something or "somebody", outside of their being, to give them "a purpose" for their life. Worst of all, they "say", they can't wait to die, so that they can have "eternal life". The reason I say they "say", is because I never met a "believer" who was dying to get to heaven!

]]> By: Roger http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-65768 Roger Wed, 11 May 2011 04:56:15 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-65768 Hi. I just found your blog. It looks great. I hope to return here often Hi. I just found your blog. It looks great. I hope to return here often

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60678 Alex Weaver Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:40:40 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60678 Huh, there doesn't actually seem to be a card for that. Someone with time should make one. Huh, there doesn't actually seem to be a card for that.

Someone with time should make one.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60675 Alex Weaver Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:32:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60675 <blockquote>From what I read in your opening statement, you are just as narrow in your thoughts and universal outlook as the religious people you mock. Not to mention very paranoid. Many of the things I find here are very interesting to read, so I do. Still, it seems to me calling it all "atheism" simply narrows it's scope and is needlessly selective. You're not nearly as "enlightened", nor as "open" as you claim. Like the religious, you are deliberately closing yourself, and your site, off from thoughts with which you disagree, simply by using that title. This is, of course, your prerogative as the owner, but, at least, try not to be a hypocrite in the process.</blockquote> *Googles "New Atheism Troll Bingo"*

From what I read in your opening statement, you are just as narrow in your thoughts and universal outlook as the religious people you mock. Not to mention very paranoid. Many of the things I find here are very interesting to read, so I do. Still, it seems to me calling it all "atheism" simply narrows it's scope and is needlessly selective. You're not nearly as "enlightened", nor as "open" as you claim. Like the religious, you are deliberately closing yourself, and your site, off from thoughts with which you disagree, simply by using that title. This is, of course, your prerogative as the owner, but, at least, try not to be a hypocrite in the process.

*Googles "New Atheism Troll Bingo"*

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60670 Thumpalumpacus Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:09:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60670 Of course, if Ebon called this site <i>Daylight Agnosticism</i> and then wrote of his atheism, he would be lambasted for dishonesty. DNTMEE, of course, would <i>never</i> do that. He's obviously fair, and unbiased. So yeah, do you have anything besides <i>ad homs</i>? Of course, if Ebon called this site Daylight Agnosticism and then wrote of his atheism, he would be lambasted for dishonesty.

DNTMEE, of course, would never do that. He's obviously fair, and unbiased.

So yeah, do you have anything besides ad homs?

]]> By: Mathew Wilder http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60624 Mathew Wilder Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:32:27 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60624 Yes, DNTMEE, how about a specific criticism? On what grounds do you accuse Ebon of narrow-mindedness? Offer a valid criticism, or gtfo. Yes, DNTMEE, how about a specific criticism? On what grounds do you accuse Ebon of narrow-mindedness? Offer a valid criticism, or gtfo.

]]> By: Rollingforest http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60584 Rollingforest Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:21:35 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60584 DNTMEE, he's putting forward his personal views. If you want to debate him, then do so, but don't complain that he isn't writing about views he disagrees with. That's your job. DNTMEE, he's putting forward his personal views. If you want to debate him, then do so, but don't complain that he isn't writing about views he disagrees with. That's your job.

]]> By: DNTMEE http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60519 DNTMEE Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:53:36 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-60519 From what I read in your opening statement, you are just as narrow in your thoughts and universal outlook as the religious people you mock. Not to mention very paranoid. Many of the things I find here are very interesting to read, so I do. Still, it seems to me calling it all "atheism" simply narrows it's scope and is needlessly selective. You're not nearly as "enlightened", nor as "open" as you claim. Like the religious, you are deliberately closing yourself, and your site, off from thoughts with which you disagree, simply by using that title. This is, of course, your prerogative as the owner, but, at least, try not to be a hypocrite in the process. From what I read in your opening statement, you are just as narrow in your thoughts and universal outlook as the religious people you mock. Not to mention very paranoid. Many of the things I find here are very interesting to read, so I do. Still, it seems to me calling it all "atheism" simply narrows it's scope and is needlessly selective. You're not nearly as "enlightened", nor as "open" as you claim. Like the religious, you are deliberately closing yourself, and your site, off from thoughts with which you disagree, simply by using that title. This is, of course, your prerogative as the owner, but, at least, try not to be a hypocrite in the process.

]]> By: Jim Speiser http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-58493 Jim Speiser Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:31:56 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-58493 @Steve Bowen: "It is faith with reason and precedent." Which is, of course, not faith. The Bible clearly tells us (I love turning that phrase around!) that Faith is "belief in things unseen; knowledge of things hoped for." Science does not blindly cling to its principles; it does not simply <i>hope</i> that the laws guiding the universe will stay uniform from observation to observation; it <i>perceives</i> that they have stayed uniform throughout the past. Thus the Biblical definition of faith does not apply to science, nor to most trivial bestowals of confidence such as the belief that a chair will hold us up or that existence has an objective (non-solipsistic) component. Since our argument is primarily with Bible-believers, it helps our case to use their vocabulary to our advantage. Perhaps we should stake a claim to our own turf and decide to use a different word; I think "confidence" fits the bill. We have <i>confidence</i> the chair will hold us up. This emphasizes the fact that it is based on <i>informed</i> belief, and more clearly isolates "faith" as having no basis in rationality whatsoever. @Steve Bowen: "It is faith with reason and precedent." Which is, of course, not faith. The Bible clearly tells us (I love turning that phrase around!) that Faith is "belief in things unseen; knowledge of things hoped for." Science does not blindly cling to its principles; it does not simply hope that the laws guiding the universe will stay uniform from observation to observation; it perceives that they have stayed uniform throughout the past. Thus the Biblical definition of faith does not apply to science, nor to most trivial bestowals of confidence such as the belief that a chair will hold us up or that existence has an objective (non-solipsistic) component. Since our argument is primarily with Bible-believers, it helps our case to use their vocabulary to our advantage.

Perhaps we should stake a claim to our own turf and decide to use a different word; I think "confidence" fits the bill. We have confidence the chair will hold us up. This emphasizes the fact that it is based on informed belief, and more clearly isolates "faith" as having no basis in rationality whatsoever.

]]> By: Rollingforest http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-58430 Rollingforest Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:41:14 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/02/welcome-to-daylight-atheism.html#comment-58430 I'm sure most Intelligent Design theorists are lead by faith, believing that "my belief has to be true." But they are claiming to be led by science, "my belief is not necessarily true, but is by far the most likely". If there are any of them that actually believe this second claim, then they would be doing bad science or bad philosophy. I'm sure most Intelligent Design theorists are lead by faith, believing that "my belief has to be true." But they are claiming to be led by science, "my belief is not necessarily true, but is by far the most likely". If there are any of them that actually believe this second claim, then they would be doing bad science or bad philosophy.

]]>