Atheism Is For The Weak

[Ouroboros]

Except you don't know that you do know everything. hehe

But I do know that I don't know everything...

 

I've been thinking about running for an office some day. I'd have no problems saying I'm athiest.

You can try to say that you're an Egotheist. Then at least you do "believe" in some "God"...

[Amanda]

Skankboy, you are so wise. It seems countries are started by people who want to believe like they all want to believe individually! Then some people take a belief to secure their political agendas, then all the people can't believe like they want to believe individually.

 

I refuse to conform to this individualist mentality.

 

That's certainly your individual right!

 

What are all you wonderful Atheists going to do when Atheism becomes the majority, and you think like everyone else?

 

It seems like many of the great Atheists on this site are the critical thinkers that question the validity of the status quo mentality... always pushing reason to the next step. Who knows, you all may come full circle?

 

(btw, I am kidding about coming full circle)

 

PS - thanks for the praise Amanda. Sometimes you make it tough to be a buddhist...

 

Skankboy, Buddhism is the best! It's just so hard to understand it. No wonder they meditate all the time.

[Ladyfractal]

They have no position to defend. This is great for debate. You can attack the other guys position, but he can't attack your position. After all when you believe in nothing(as far as God is concerned) you have nothing to defend.

 

How much courage does it take to stand for nothing? None.

How much courage does it take to defend nothing? None.

How much intellect does it take to defend nothing? None.

 

Well, I suppose this will have to do for an introductory post. I recognize that you are probably long gone over the virtual horizon but if you aren't, welcome, Grasshopper to the first day of your lesson in Post-Fu.

 

When you ask how much courage it takes to stand for nothing, you ask a meaningless question that, in fact, has nothing to do with atheism qua atheism and more to do with your misperceptions of what atheism is. Atheism is not a belief in 'nothing' it is a much more limited postulate. Atheism--regardless of how we might get there--is a statement that there is no god. Now, some folks arrive at point because of anger, some arrive there because of a stunning lack of evidence for a divine being. I arrived because of anger, I have stayed because I find the 'God hypothesis' inelegant. A short diversion is necessary--elegance, in the context I am using it, is an aesthetic judgment about how parsinomious a given postulate is and how well it maps to the real world. While, on first glance, God appears to be a very simple explanation for the complexity of the Universe, it begs far more questions than it possibly answers and ALL of those questions are beyond any reasonable test--in fact, in most cases there are no conceivable tests for a God-created Universe. In other words, there is no falsification criteria by which a reasonable and rational person could evaluate the idea 'God wanted X and therefore X is'.

 

The Universe, in all its form and splendor, needs no divine being in order for any given feature to be explained. Physics is sufficient to explain the Universe from a little after the Planck time to the present. Chemistry is sufficient to explain the evolution of stars and pre-biotic worlds. Biology is sufficient to explain what happens when chemistry starts being done in a manner where local entropy is reverse (e.g. in living things). Again, I state this because the only time God gets invoked is when the macro-questions are at issue--why is there a Universe at all? Why are there (insert living thing here), and other such questions. As soon as the issue becomes, for instance, intra-specific gene transfer in bacteria or protein shape prediction suddenly theism (and theists arguing their god) get the glazed eyes, let out a huge yawn, and then shuffle off to do something else. In fact, those are really interesting questions in biology but theists aren't interested in THOSE questions. However, if it stands to reason that you need a God for there to be proteins in the first place, one would need to factor God into why they have the shapes they do. But theism gets us no closer to a non-brute force answer to that question in proteinomics.

 

 

Athiest logic.

 

I mock God, therefore there is no God.

 

That, actually, is not an argument I have ever made. That is not an argument I have ever heard an atheist make.

 

Also, they ask stupid questions like "Can you prove there is a God?"

 

Actually this is not a stupid question in the least bit. A stupid question is "can you prove there isn't a god"? Well, no, I cannot because it is notoriously difficult to prove a negative. Now, let's say that I postulate that the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorns) bring the rains that make the flowers grow. I state this to you, you will--quite justifiably--ask me to provide *some* independently verifiable evidence that these IPU exist. Let's then say that I say that the IPU, being invisible, are beyond your ability to see with your eyes but must be sensed with the heart. You are now getting a bit skeptical about the existence of the IPU. Again, you are entirely justified for doing so. So you ask me to provide, for instance, a hoofprint of an IPU. I tell you that they don't make them. You ask me to demonstrate that the flowers could not grow without the IPU. I launch into an argument of perfect circularity. Does any of this sound familiar? At each step you are absolutely justified in following up with more questions because I have made a deep statement about the nature of nature that flies in the face of all available evidence. It would be an act of supreme intellectual laziness on your part to NOT ask me these questions.

 

Now, the only reason--THE ONLY ONE--that you are laughing at this point is that I cannot muster a million people who also believe in the IPU. However, if there were I would have a religion and it would be considered the height of incivility for you to query me deeply on these matters.

 

Feel free to mock this post, since it's all you've got.

 

I believe that I have sufficiently (for now) demonstrated your error without mocking you in the least bit. Thus endeth the lesson, Grasshopper.

 

Cheers

Lf

[Caretaker]

Welcome LadyFractal, from another Northwesterner (Seattle area).

[Ouroboros]

 

Athiest logic.

 

I mock God, therefore there is no God.

 

That, actually, is not an argument I have ever made. That is not an argument I have ever heard an atheist make.

Hehe, I got to think of a good response argument to IntroSpectacle...

 

I mock stupid trolls, therefore I exist.

 

(Just wish I could say it in latin)

 

And with that, I say welcome LadyFractal.

[Amanda]

 

 

Lady Fractal, great style and post.

 

Welcome to these forums.

 

Hope to see more of your insightful input around here.

[Lightbearer]

Perhaps you might want to pursue that in a way that suggest that you are for empowering people in a belief in their own capacity, in a way that gives them the ability to cause their future to be under their own control, and therefore accountability and responsibility for their own actions. Hey, Lightbearer, I'd vote for you!

 

 

 

Well thanks!

 

My platform would be a pro-individual, pro-capitalism, pro-morality type one. It's hard to explain, but an athiest can do Christians better in office then a Christian can. It's about the First Amendment, which says "congress shall pass no law that respects religion or henders the practice thereof" which means that I, the elected leader, can not use the government, i.e. the legal force, to impose my beliefs upon the people. I believe in individual rights, life, liberty, property and the pursuit of these things and the happiness that they can bring.

 

See, I would legalize prositution, weed, and most other drugs and stop restricting gambling and alchohol. Because, it's not the governments job to make moral desicions for you. And by making these things legal, open and avaible, it take the power away from the criminals and their monoply on them. You see? The drug lords could not make money from selling drugs anymore, so they can't enforce their will upon other people anymore.

 

So it may seem like an immoral choice, it's better for the people and empowers the individual. But in order to stem the tide of the behavior that might come from more drug use, make the laws alot tougher on criminals. Especially sex offenders, if it was up to me, i'd give the judge the power to use capital punishment in case of of extreme sex offenders. So the tougher laws that punish immoral people who have no respect for the rights of others. This empowers the individual because they know they are protected by the government that they hired when they voted for them.

 

Same thing with the economy, by deregulating it, people can make more money and purchase products for cheaper. Without protection from the government, more innovation can occur in the market place, giving the individual better products.

 

Get rid of the welfare-state so people will learn self-responibility instead of relying on the state to take care of them when they refuse to take care of themselves. Being a parasite on the state hurts the individuals who have to involuantarily pay for these people.

 

 

That's my basic political theory, I am still shaping it up, but given that would you still vote for me?

[Amanda]

<See, I would legalize prositution, weed, and most other drugs and stop restricting gambling and alchohol.>

 

<But in order to stem the tide of the behavior that might come from more drug use, make the laws alot tougher on criminals. Especially sex offenders, if it was up to me, i'd give the judge the power to use capital punishment in case of of extreme sex offenders.>

 

<Same thing with the economy, by deregulating it, people can make more money and purchase products for cheaper.>

 

<Get rid of the welfare-state so people will learn self-responibility instead of relying on the state to take care of them when they refuse to take care of themselves.>

 

<That's my basic political theory, I am still shaping it up, but given that would you still vote for me? >

 

Lightbearer, I don't think there are simple solutions for complex problems. Someone has to make a stand somewhere though! I agree with your line of thinking on much of these issues. Yet, it seems as if society is trying to stop the last domino from falling, than to work at stopping the first one from falling!

 

Do I agree with the addicted use of recreational drugs, addicted recreational gambling, or prostitution? No. These are not the problem, IMO, and are only the symptoms of the actual problem that seems to stay hidden. I do believe in addressing these real underlying problems/issues producing these outcomes, and I think much of it could be done in school by enhancing self esteem and teaching coping skills to life's ever increasing stressors. Sex offenders, as in all offenders, need the same things... however, they, as everyone, must be held accountable and responsible for their behavior.

 

Rehabilitation efforts, if offered at all, have become a joke in the US. There are very few effective counseling facilities, mostly because of the criteria in which they are implemented and structured.

 

Deregulating the economy as you suggest, only concerns me in the ability for monopolies to put out their competition, squashing small business, and then we are at the mercy of the monopoly. People have shown their ability to use greed to bypass moral ethics for power and money.

 

Welfare? A country's history is often evaluated by their compassion. Who decides where to draw the line is the question. Do we not help someone that has acquired MS, hodgkins disease, schitzophrenia, or other disabling conditions? Becareful how one answers that, because it could by you or your beloved family member that is next.

 

I like your ideas Lightbearer, it's just that I see the other side of the contiuum... so how do we stay somewhere in the middle?

[greygirl]

That's my basic political theory, I am still shaping it up, but given that would you still vote for me?

 

I wouldn't, for the following reasons:

 

Same thing with the economy, by deregulating it, people can make more money and purchase products for cheaper. Without protection from the government, more innovation can occur in the market place, giving the individual better products.

 

Uh, no. Deregulating the economy and giving businesses free rein would bring back the days of sweat shops, child labor, workers being forced to work inhumane hours without extra pay, workers being paid with "company store" dollars and owing more to the company than they could ever hope to earn. We've had unregulated business before, and it was a nightmare of corruption and abuse. I'm not interested in worker's rights being tossed back into the 19th century.

 

Get rid of the welfare-state so people will learn self-responibility instead of relying on the state to take care of them when they refuse to take care of themselves. Being a parasite on the state hurts the individuals who have to involuantarily pay for these people.

 

The fact that someone falls on hard times and needs some temporary help does not make them a parasite, nor does it mean they "refuse to take care of themselves". I can agree that there are problems with the welfare system, and there are some people who abuse it, but those people are very much in the minority. Personally, I'm not willing to take the trade-off of increased crime when people are left with the choice of theft or starvation because they lost their job in your deregulated economy and there's no help available to them.

 

I'm sure you'll be very popular with rich business owners who don't give a damn about anything but their own bottom line, but I vote for candidates who care about society as a whole, not just the bits that fit into their idealized view of how things should be.

[Taphophilia]

 

Get rid of the welfare-state so people will learn self-responibility instead of relying on the state to take care of them when they refuse to take care of themselves. Being a parasite on the state hurts the individuals who have to involuantarily pay for these people.

 

 

Once upon a time I too held this same opinoin. It's lovely to be so delusional wearing the rose colored glasses. However, life has a way of slapping you in the face, knocking those glasses off to the stark realities of life. If you've never been slapped in the face by life than you are either too young or have a Robber Baron mentality

 

Try being a single parent struggling to raise your children on a starvation wages, where the only insurance you can get for your children is medicaid and it is all but impossible to find a doctor who accepts it.

 

So, what do you do? Do you work two and three jobs, never be there for your children and when you are home, you are too tired, exhaused, and stressed out to be a parent? Do you spend half your paycheck on babysitters or do you leave your small children home alone so you have enough money to pay the rent? Which is better, having your electric shut off because you don't have enough money to pay the bill after paying your rent or being evicted because you don't have enough money to pay your rent after paying your electric bill?

[Vigile]

 

Get rid of the welfare-state so people will learn self-responibility instead of relying on the state to take care of them when they refuse to take care of themselves. Being a parasite on the state hurts the individuals who have to involuantarily pay for these people.

 

 

Once upon a time I too held this same opinion. It's lovely to be so delusional wearing the rose colored glasses. However, life has a way of slapping you in the face, knocking those glasses off to the stark realities of life. If you've never been slapped in the face by life than you are either too young or have a Robber Baron mentality

 

Well, I don't know, I guess I agree with LB. Get rid of the welfare state indeed. Walmart, farmers, and other corporations have been on dole way too long:

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/18816/

 

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporat...rt_Welfare.html

 

http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html

 

I love it when welfare queens get all the attention, when the budget outlay for welfare pales in comparison to money spent on the military, government waste, and foreign aid (read: strings attached coercive foreign policy). All this, and the corps avoid much of their tax burden due to tax schemes legal and not so legal.

[Ladyfractal]

 

Same thing with the economy, by deregulating it, people can make more money and purchase products for cheaper. Without protection from the government, more innovation can occur in the market place, giving the individual better products.

 

Get rid of the welfare-state so people will learn self-responibility instead of relying on the state to take care of them when they refuse to take care of themselves. Being a parasite on the state hurts the individuals who have to involuantarily pay for these people.

 

That's my basic political theory, I am still shaping it up, but given that would you still vote for me?

 

No, for a number of reasons...all of which I will address forthwith.

 

Firstly, while it is true that by deregulating the economy *some* people can make more money it is not true that this leads to benefits being spread more efficiently through the society. I'll take a couple of examples:

 

1> Externalization of costs. Without government regulation, it makes no economic sense to pay any more attention to environmental costs than is absolutely necessary. Regardless of the obvious long-term consequences of not doing so, the short-term consequence is as follows. You and I are business competitors. Our businesses have similar efficiencies. However, I run my business in such a way that we are scrupulous about not polluting the environment. We pay more for 'green' energy, we pay more to recycle our paper products, etc. Now, while in the very long run my business is more sustainable than yours, quarter-to-quarter your business MUST do better than mine because you are externalizing costs that my business does not. In this situation the only rational economic decision is to externalize those costs myself otherwise my business will not be competitive.

 

2> Devaluation of labor. In a completely degregulated economy wages for any non-rare skill must head toward the lowest sustainable point. The reasons for this are, again, similar to the reasoning for the externalization of costs. Again, I am a conscientious businesswoman. I pay my workers at

a rate slightly above the prevailing wage. I also provide my workers healthcare. You do neither. Now, since there are a limited number of jobs you will *still* have workers and since these workers know that they can't do better, they will put up with your low-wages and lack of health benefits. What choice do they have? Again, we're talking non-rare skill sets here. Again, over the short, quarter-to-quarter time frame (which is what the market looks at) your business will do better. So the *only* viable option to me is to do what you are doing, which means that we both are in a race to keep our wages as low as possible and still have people show up to work. (No one is going to come in for no pay)

 

3> Various issues under the large umbrella of civil rights. There is no way that the desegregation could have happened except for government intervention. Imagine we are both restaurant owners in a mid-sized town in Alabama, circa 1963. I desegregate my dining area, you don't. My business falls off precipitiously, yours doesn't. Whites simply stop coming to my restaurant even if they agree with the policy because of pressure from the surrounding community against desegregation. Blacks, excluded from large areas of the economy simply do not have the disposable income and therefore I go out of business. Now, is it the right thing to do? Of course, but it is in no way the economically *rational* thing to do.

 

That takes care of the deregulation issue--more or less. I could go deeper into it but I won't at present, I think my point is made without belaboring it.

 

As far as 'teaching people self-sufficiency' by eliminating the welfare state. What we call the welfare-state firstly includes things like VA benefits, SSD (social security disability) and SSI (social security insurance). Are you going to tell me that the following four people simply need to learn more self-sufficiency: A 13 year old girl, one parent is disabled, the other is dead. A 100% disabled veteran. A 75 year old retiree with Parkinsons. A 35 year old psychotic who is able to maintain some kind of life only because he lives in a residential treatment facility where he takes meds three or four times a day to keep his psychosis in some state of check but who is still crazier than a shithouse rat? What are these people supposed to 'learn' about self-sufficiency, precisely? I know you *think* that it could never be you, but it can be you. At 22 I thought it could never be me--and I got a rude awakening upon getting a divorce. It was me. Now, child of the upper-middle class that I am, it was me for all of about 6 months but it was *still* me. I say that not to engender sympathy, just to get you to think about the fact that at present you may be living fat, dumb and happy but unless you are a member of the economic elite you are one really bad, non-fatal accident away from SSD. Now, don't go saying "well, I didn't mean that" because when you say 'the welfare state' that is *precisely* what you mean. You are talking about SSI, SSD, veterans benefits along with AFDC (or whatever it is called now).

 

Cheers

Aj

[Astreja]

A friend of mine has an expression: Each and every one of us is only two paycheques away from living on the street.

 

On paper, things like corporate profits sound really nice. Economy is booming, yup, uh-huh. But the money rarely makes it down to the people who do the actual work. Someone working at a minimum-wage job reaps little or no benefit from the "boom."

 

Currently it takes three or four individuals, all working at minimum wage, or one person working a lot, to raise the capital to get a cheap house in an unritzy neighbourhood. If they're really, reeeeally good at pinching pennies they might have an older car to get from hither to yon.

 

To live "the good life" as per the standard American Dream definition requires even more income. Supplementary education such as music lessons, concert attendance, team sports and postsecondary education costs even more. If, that is, one still has time for such things after putting in an 80-hour shift.

 

I'm currently working two jobs -- Medical stenographer and music teacher. I take clarinet lessons once a week, which is another $80 out-of-pocket every month. I'd like to take violin and piano, too, but that'll have to wait till the next round of family giftgiving. And that B.Sc. will have to wait even longer. Did manage to scrape up $50 for a ten-week intro karate course, though.

 

Oh, and the North American economy is fucking doomed. One good gust o' wind and it *will* come crashing down. Be careful out there, folks.

[Amanda]

 

 

Astreja, you are soooo right!

 

I think there are a lot of myths perpetrated by the wealthy in this country to secure their own lineage of luxury. Such as, people ought not to have to have degrees for much of the more profitable positions. Securing a degree from Yale or Harvard will secure their child's future. Ronald Regan was one who was trying to say... we're carrying this degree thing too far. We don't need it for many of the positions that we call for it!

 

And, it's like all of us have to obey the rules... but the wealthy don't. Justice is blind... and favors the wealthy, and puts extra on the poor. It's disgraceful! And then this horrific illegal immigration thing... what is that all about? I've known of federal programs that provide fake social security numbers so that illegal aliens can attain their counseling services... FREE. Free for them, not us...the working class is paying for it. Is it because Mexico is our #1 provider of oil, and who knows what else? We're giving 30 million to Lebanon, who claims devotion to Hezbolah (sp)... who want to kill us? It seems the rich want to secure good diplomacy with all these countries they do business with, while the striving working class pays the price. It seems they want to keep us working so hard and long, bickering amongst ourself, so that we don't see what they are really doing of don't have time to do anything about it!

 

We're going to need a wonder child to run next election... however, the wealthy will make sure their money of supporting an election will only go to those that support their agenda. That is why I like John McCain... that wants to stop this 'soft money'. If we can stop the power of money in the elections... then maybe people can run for office that are truly for everyone.

[EdwardAbbey]

They have no position to defend. This is great for debate. You can attack the other guys position, but he can't attack your position. After all when you believe in nothing(as far as God is concerned) you have nothing to defend.

 

I think you're correct in a sense. We only exist because of the millions who believe in something as delusional and rediculous as a God that doesn't exist no more than Santa Claus exists.

 

How much courage does it take to stand for nothing? None.

How much courage does it take to defend nothing? None.

How much intellect does it take to defend nothing? None.

I suppose you think you have so much more courage because you and the millions like you who defend a delusion. How absurd can you be? and ignorant to boot!

 

Definitely for the weak.

Not really. We're the strong ones who have learned to accept reality for what it is and are not convinced of your delusional Deity that goes no further than your brain.

[InspectoGeneral]

Well, I suppose this will have to do for an introductory post. I recognize that you are probably long gone over the virtual horizon but if you aren't, welcome, Grasshopper to the first day of your lesson in Post-Fu.

 

Thanks for the instructions.

 

 

 

When you ask how much courage it takes to stand for nothing, you ask a meaningless question that, in fact, has nothing to do with atheism qua atheism and more to do with your misperceptions of what atheism is. Atheism is not a belief in 'nothing' it is a much more limited postulate. Atheism--regardless of how we might get there--is a statement that there is no god.

 

If you belief in no God, then you believe in nothing(as regarding God). But everyathiests feels the need to concoct their own definition. Welcome to the club.

 

 

Now, some folks arrive at point because of anger, some arrive there because of a stunning lack of evidence for a divine being. I arrived because of anger, I have stayed because I find the 'God hypothesis' inelegant.

 

Noone cares why you are an Atheist. It is what it is.

 

A short diversion is necessary--elegance, in the context I am using it, is an aesthetic judgment about how parsinomious a given postulate is and how well it maps to the real world. While, on first glance, God appears to be a very simple explanation for the complexity of the Universe, it begs far more questions than it possibly answers

 

On the contrary. You can't explain where everything came from or why you are here. And from those two questions arise many others. Also, your basis for morality is arbitrary.

 

 

and ALL of those questions are beyond any reasonable test--in fact, in most cases there are no conceivable tests for a God-created Universe. In other words, there is no falsification criteria by which a reasonable and rational person could evaluate the idea 'God wanted X and therefore X is'.

 

Yeah, the same thing is true of fish to man evolution, and yet many Atheists are quick to cling to that one. And even then, they can't explain where life came from or where everythingelse came from.

 

The Universe, in all its form and splendor, needs no divine being in order for any given feature to be explained. Physics is sufficient to explain the Universe from a little after the Planck time to the present.

 

And before that?

 

Chemistry is sufficient to explain the evolution of stars and pre-biotic worlds. Biology is sufficient to explain what happens when chemistry starts being done in a manner where local entropy is reverse (e.g. in living things).

 

And yet they still cannot make blood. Why? They can't define life. Why?

 

 

Again, I state this because the only time God gets invoked is when the macro-questions are at issue--why is there a Universe at all? Why are there (insert living thing here), and other such questions. As soon as the issue becomes, for instance, intra-specific gene transfer in bacteria or protein shape prediction suddenly theism (and theists arguing their god) get the glazed eyes, let out a huge yawn, and then shuffle off to do something else. In fact, those are really interesting questions in biology but theists aren't interested in THOSE questions. However, if it stands to reason that you need a God for there to be proteins in the first place, one would need to factor God into why they have the shapes they do. But theism gets us no closer to a non-brute force answer to that question in proteinomics.

 

Maybe you should talk to a different group of theists.

 

 

Also, they ask stupid questions like "Can you prove there is a God?"

 

 

Actually this is not a stupid question in the least bit. A stupid question is "can you prove there isn't a god"? Well, no, I cannot because it is notoriously difficult to prove a negative. Now, let's say that I postulate that the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorns) bring the rains that make the flowers grow. I state this to you, you will--quite justifiably--ask me to provide *some* independently verifiable evidence that these IPU exist. Let's then say that I say that the IPU, being invisible, are beyond your ability to see with your eyes but must be sensed with the heart. You are now getting a bit skeptical about the existence of the IPU. Again, you are entirely justified for doing so. So you ask me to provide, for instance, a hoofprint of an IPU. I tell you that they don't make them. You ask me to demonstrate that the flowers could not grow without the IPU. I launch into an argument of perfect circularity. Does any of this sound familiar? At each step you are absolutely justified in following up with more questions because I have made a deep statement about the nature of nature that flies in the face of all available evidence. It would be an act of supreme intellectual laziness on your part to NOT ask me these questions.

 

Interesting. I guess you missed the point.

 

Now, the only reason--THE ONLY ONE--that you are laughing at this point is that I cannot muster a million people who also believe in the IPU. However, if there were I would have a religion and it would be considered the height of incivility for you to query me deeply on these matters.

 

Interesting. So you think there are millions of people following God because they were tricked and not because it is intrinsically part of our nature?

 

 

 

I believe that I have sufficiently (for now) demonstrated your error without mocking you in the least bit. Thus endeth the lesson, Grasshopper.

 

You should have just mocked me.

[crazy-tiger]

Should I? Should I bother replying to someone who never did care about what we were saying, just about how they could twist our words so they could refute a strawman?

 

Fuck it, why not?

If you belief in no God, then you believe in nothing(as regarding God). But everyathiests feels the need to concoct their own definition. Welcome to the club.

Well fuck... you start with stating the fucking obvious...

 

No fucking kidding we believe in nothing as regards to God if we believe in no God. (what was your point? I mean, why bother telling us what we've told you?)

Noone cares why you are an Atheist. It is what it is.

Yes... who cares? After all, if you don't bother finding out why, then you can make up your own reasons why, can't you?

 

Intellectually dishonest... seems your 3 month vacation hasn't done you any good.

On the contrary. You can't explain where everything came from or why you are here. And from those two questions arise many others. Also, your basis for morality is arbitrary.

Where did everything come from? We don't know, but we're trying to find out. Saying the answer is God just makes the question "Where did God come from?" Interestingly enough, the answer to that is "We don't know and we're not trying to find out..." Not only does that not tell us where everythng came from, but it rules out EVER finding out where we came from.

 

Why am I here...? Well, my parents fucked, conceived me and, 9 months later, my mother gave birth to me. Oh, you mean why is the Human Race here? Because Evolution has progressed along certain lines and resulted in the life we see today.

 

Sorry... you were wanting some Grand Reason for Existence? Doesn't exist. You could claim that God made us for a reason... but then you have to answer the question "why did God make us?" The only answer I've ever got for that is "Because!" (that's the basic answer... usually there's a lot of garbage about how God loves us which is why he made us, but that doesn't answer a damned thing)

 

Arbitrary Morality... you seem to think that's a problem for Atheists. Have you ever looked at the basis for morality in Christianity? It's based on the changing whims of God... Abitrarily changing acording to how he feels.

 

Quite a pretty corner you've painted yourself into there... and you would have seen it coming if you'd engaged your mind.

Yeah, the same thing is true of fish to man evolution, and yet many Atheists are quick to cling to that one. And even then, they can't explain where life came from or where everythingelse came from.

But Evolution can be falsified... all it needs is for, say, a cat to give birth to a dog, and evolution would be falsified. Which you would know had you studied evolution...

 

By the way... Christianity doesn't explain where life came from, or indeed, anything else. On the other hand, there's the Theory of Abiogenesis that's gaining evidence and is a contender for the explaination of where life came from. (big oops there... someone's not been paying attention, have you?)

And before that?

And before God?

 

Please... what is the answer to that question...? (god has always been? so has the Universe. )

And yet they still cannot make blood. Why? They can't define life. Why?

Artificial blood anyone? Definition of Life anyone?

Maybe you should talk to a different group of theists.

yeah... like a group that's paying attention to what's being done in science...

Interesting. I guess you missed the point.

Nope... we've been showing you the point. Maybe you should pay attention instead of handwaving.

Interesting. So you think there are millions of people following God because they were tricked and not because it is intrinsically part of our nature?

Socially conditioned... yep, people get conditioned into it as they grow up.

You should have just mocked me.

I would, but you do a good enough job of that yourself.

[Mongo]

 

as far as the quote, i don't think it is stating we should be weak, but yet realize that we are weak without Jesus, who is the source of our spiritual strength.

 

I understand the logic of your assertion but when I examine the evidence... I find that xtians are weak.

 

To become a stronger person emotionally, I left xtianity and decided to think for myself. I have a much thicker skin than I did as a xtian. I also have considerably more optimism because the tools to shape my world are within my hands and more importantly, in my mind which I do not submit to religious authority for approval. Furthermore, it is much healthier to not live in fear of an eternal punishment that no rational and loving god could possibly have devised. Hell is so obviously a tool of social manipulation, that it is impossible that those who live in respect of hell cannot be emotionally strong. As well, xtians are so obsessed with vice they have to hide what they do which is also highly destructive emotionally.

 

Mentally... christianity hinders the use of basic logic and reason. Have you not seen the video of the guy so says that the continents separated because god "expanded the earth" rapidly instead of via natural processess. The xtian war against scientests clearly is a futile and absurd repetition of history.

 

When I talk to ex-chriatians, I find they find absence of christianity makes them stronger and makes fuller use of their mental faculties.

 

I fail to see what you have to offer.

 

Mongo

[Onyx]

Honestly, I have little use for religion. Religion is one of the few tools that can actually stunt intellectual growth for most people unless they are able to seperate their faith and reality or shun faith alogether.

 

No doubt, there are some great religious scientists but they usually don't let god into their science unless it is absolutely inevitable for them to study religion and science together. If their field of science has to have to do anything with religion, I think they must be objective about that research. In other words, no BIAS. No scaremongering. No lies. No secrets. Last time people forced religion into anything to do with intellectual things instead of intellectual things naturally supporting religion or not, it was with disastrous results.

 

If science proves or disproves the existence of God in a irrefutable way, I will change my thoughts depending on what actually happens but it doesn't mean if God is proven, that I will run off to the nearest church to get absolution or repenting and laugh at atheists, agnostics and any other non religious people. If God is disproven irrefutably, I will not run off to the nearest atheist organization and scream "I'm RIGHT! RIGHHHHHHHHHT! You are little idiots!" I won't stoop to that. I will continue to live life as it is.

 

But my next thought about what would happen if both cases happened may be illogical or logical.

Either way, both religion and non-religion will be extinct since if God is disproven, all religions and non religion will be invalid even if atheism is the correct position because once there is no gods, how you can say you're an atheist or Christian or Islamic whatever? Such things are like trying to imagine nothingness. There is only humanity, animals, behaviours, cities and everything you see and experience but no god.

 

If a god is proven, all religions (and non religion) is meaningless even if Deism, Islam, Christianity or any other religion with gods are the correct positions because if you say you believe in a god, he, she or it is merely a force creating or evoluting things (Like gravity, it is a force pulling you down but you don't call it a god.) he, she or it would only be a part of the universe and outside of universe (If it is possible) because even if there is a outside of the universe, he, she or it is also a part of it. It may seem supernatural to us human but in reality it is nothing extraordinary about a god if it exists.

 

No, atheism and agnosticism is not for the weak. It is a very honest and a valid position. It is one of the closest pictures of reality, short of facing life without illusions of either a belief in god/s or negative opinions of gods's existence.

 

The ultimate picture of reality I think, is having no religious or atheistical opinions. Nothing but unvarnished reality. No, I'm not advocating nihilism!

Neither am I supporting apathicism. I see atheism, agnoticism and any other non religious thoughts as a prelude to having thoughts on to how to live life itself, how to have a good life without atheism, agnosticism, christianity or any other religious thoughts.

 

What I'm saying we should face life and start being secure and happy/contented in it. Just live a life with joy, solve problems, live through tough times with your friends and family you love and have merry fun!

[InspectoGeneral]

crazy tiger said-

 

"Where did everything come from? We don't know"

 

From the looks of your post, "We don't know" seems to be your answer to all three.

 

And on the evolution front. A dog birthing a cat would prove evolution, not disprove it. since dogs always produce dogs, it belies common sence to believe that a dog would somehow birth anything other than a dog. Which would have to have occured somewhere slong the way. Great effort though.

[Asimov]

And on the evolution front. A dog birthing a cat would prove evolution, not disprove it. since dogs always produce dogs, it belies common sence to believe that a dog would somehow birth anything other than a dog. Which would have to have occured somewhere slong the way. Great effort though.

 

Dogs aren't supposed to birth anything other than dogs, scientists who study evolution and theorize are quite aware of this and it does not conflict with evolution. If you are implying that scientists somehow think that dogs would give birth to anything other than a dog then you are applying a gross misrepresentation not only to the scientists but the theory of evolution itself.

 

Whether that's ignorance on your part or plain stupidity is not my call to make.

[crazy-tiger]

crazy tiger said-

 

"Where did everything come from? We don't know"

 

From the looks of your post, "We don't know" seems to be your answer to all three.

And your answer is?

 

Incredibly enough, it's exactly the same... you don't know either.

And on the evolution front. A dog birthing a cat would prove evolution, not disprove it. since dogs always produce dogs, it belies common sence to believe that a dog would somehow birth anything other than a dog. Which would have to have occured somewhere slong the way. Great effort though.

Strawman... Go read up on evolution and learn what it's about, rather than vomiting up the shit that a certain convicted tax evader keeps spouting.

 

 

:edit: I won't mock you... since you're mocking yourself.

[Trancelation]

Being honest about the way one feels is weakness?

 

Huh. Well, then, count me weak. I've always believed in integrity, especially to one's own feelings, but hey, if being honest makes one weak, then I'm weak, and you are strong. Fine with me.

[nick5]

it belies common sence to believe that a dog would somehow birth anything other than a dog

 

Like a banana, right?

[crazy-tiger]

since dogs always produce dogs, it belies common sence to believe that a dog would somehow birth anything other than a dog.

Since wolves always produce wolves, it belies common sense to believe that a wolf would somehow birth anything other than a wolf.

Which would have to have occured somewhere slong the way.

Which is just what happened... Wolves begat dogs.

 

So much for common sense...

Great effort though.

Yes... a great effort was made to create and attack a strawman...

 

Maybe you could try attacking Evolution next time?