The summer 2011 totally legitimate and like official atheist thread, endorsed too

[mjmacky]

I made it a Drawing Room thread, this implies that I'll be entirely serious in both the factual statements I present and the opinions I harbor. I, however, won't rid my personality, which is that of an ass. This first post will also be surprisingly short (to my standards).

To the theists: Faith in divine beings or the supernatural doesn't necessarily make your logic on ALL things flawed, but is certainly a warning sign that you are capable of major fallacy. Given that you believe in an entity or some that were presented to you by chance from your surroundings, and that there is absolutely no proof of its/their existence, acknowledge that you have made some major concessions that suspend both reality and logic to maintain your beliefs. Therefore, it's ridiculous when you expect to be taken seriously in a logical debate.

To the atheists: I don't have much to say to you, for not believing in magic, spirits and deities doesn't provide a very unifying characteristic. On the one commonality that does exist, I will say, aren't theists silly?

What inspired this thread?
I think I love this girl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrpT5X8yiG8

[OlegL]

Dude, didn't we already discuss it in the other thread? We need the concept of God because according to the great philosopher Kant, if there is no God, then we are allowed to do things that are immoral; we are allowed not to listen to our conscience if there is no God. Therefore, we need God because we need to fear someone. We need God if we don't want relative morality, but want absolute morality.
Edit: oh, and by the way, the girl in the video is really cute.

[mjmacky]

We need the concept of God because according to the great philosopher Kant, if there is no God, then we are allowed to do things that are immoral

Weaker minds need the concept of god to follow what is moral. We already understand what is good/bad in terms of reality as it effects the society. Adherence to it doesn't NEED negative/positive reinforcement. The ethics/morality described in religious texts are static and limited in their form, thus lose relevance over time. There are tons of things in the bible that may have been moral within their context of linear time, but are ridiculous now. Morality is a lot more complex than that.

Here's another video that illustrates my point very interestingly, but doesn't feature a cute intelligent girl with a sexy accent (therefore less likely to grab viewers, though the viewage stats don't agree):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M

[cloggy45]

[QUOTE=OlegL;3587437]
Weaker minds need the concept of god to follow what is moral.

I don't think it has anything to do with anyone being weaker or stronger, and saying so makes you sound like a douche, and that is coming from a fellow atheist.

[mjmacky]

[QUOTE=mjmacky;3587466]

I don't think it has anything to do with anyone being weaker or stronger, and saying so makes you sound like a douche, and that is coming from a fellow atheist.

Sure it can, if you need the crutch to do the right thing, you're a weaker person. I will give you this though, it doesn't mean that in all cases, e.g. you hate society and have desires to work against it. However, that's outside of the context of the particular point I was making. Also, I'm blunt, honest and have higher expectations of people. Using douche to describe that doesn't stick, ass/dick/cunt or some synonymous term with anatomical sexual organs might fit.

Edit: In reality I'm considered "insensitive"

[cloggy45]

[QUOTE=cloggy45;3587475]

Sure it can, if you need the crutch to do the right thing, you're a weaker person.

Are you a moral relativist? absolutist?

[OlegL]

Adherence to it doesn't NEED negative/positive reinforcement.


It needs reinforcement because human beings are weak more often than not; they can easily stray from a moral path and therefore, the likelihood that they will commit sins will increase. People who are in power are often weak also and it's possible they will also commit sins; therefore, it's not enough to know what is good for a society. Also, the Bible teaches us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do other bad things. The idea that we should not kill or steal is relevant to the modern times, so it's not true that the Bible talks about ridiculous moral concepts.

[mjmacky]

[QUOTE=mjmacky;3587476]

Are you a moral relativist? absolutist?

Relativist

[mjmacky]

Adherence to it doesn't NEED negative/positive reinforcement.


It needs reinforcement because human beings are weak more often than not; they can easily stray from a moral path and therefore, the likelihood that they will commit sins will increase. People who are in power are often weak also and it's possible they will also commit sins; therefore, it's not enough to know what is good for a society. Also, the Bible teaches us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do other bad things. The idea that we should not kill or steal is relevant to the modern times, so it's not true that the Bible talks about ridiculous moral concepts.

It's a joke to think we would need a bible to "teach" us these things. There's a lot of other garbage in there that you're ignoring. Some of the only validation that book receives is that it's sometimes compatible with what we can agree on, among those examples you have pointed out. You have it the other way around, human beings do the right thing more often than not and the fear of committing sin and being damned has little to do with it. That may sound bizarre coming from me, who has such a low opinion of humanity and wouldn't mind if every society implodes in on themselves. It's when someone is presented with the opportunity to do something that will benefit them at the expense of their neighbors, friends, family, strangers, community, etc. that they begin to struggle. It is at that point that they need the crutch, and I've seen, as well as we've all seen, that the crutch all too often doesn't withstand the weight of that deliberation. Therefore, I don't condemn the notion of religion as a crutch, but at the fact that it's such an ineffective one.

People who come to power are usually the ones that have stepped over others in ways that do not abide by moral and ethical standards, so it's not surprising that they will continue to do so once there. Oleg, you're not bringing much to the discussion. I'd only ask that you give it more sincere thought before presenting the viewpoint, as most of what I've pointed out should have been self-evident.

To all:
Do you feel the concept of filesharing is morally wrong?

[OlegL]

Well, I dunno man... I am just talking about what I learned in a philosophy class a long time ago... So, you don't think we need the concept of God?

[mjmacky]

So, you don't think we need the concept of God?

To clarify, this is how I feel:
It may benefit the psychological condition of the individual, but it's detrimental to the function of a community. The personal benefits I attribute to it as a coping mechanism to loss/separation/despair. The general detriment I attribute to concepts of divine forgiveness and favoritism to justify morally heinous behavior and decisions.

My thoughts go in much more detail beyond this, but I think this serves as a good header regarding my stance.

[OlegL]

But if you open a sociology book, you will read in it that religious people are often happier than non-religious people.

[bigboab]

You need a good upbringing to lead a morally correct life. A good upbringing does not necessitate the inclusion of a religious concept.

[mjmacky]

@Oleg
That statement meant virtually nothing, I hope you didn't confuse it for making a point

@bigboab
I agree with your second statement thoroughly. Your first one though I feel needs more elaboration. Some of the finer (as compared to broad/course) points of morality concern how actions impact indirectly and over time. A good upbringing may show a child how to pay attention to the extending consequences of their actions. The general broader senses of morality, however, would still be understood by children with terrible upbringings, excepting significant psychological damage and problems with mental development.

[OlegL]

excepting significant psychological damage and problems with mental development.

Well, I was never a normal child, and now I am not a normal adult. I am definitely developmentally delayed. :) So, it's quite possible I don't understand the general broader senses of morality.

[Quarterquack]

so it's not true that the Bible talks about ridiculous moral concepts.

Actually, it IS true. The Bible is the equivalent of a color-inside-the-lines kindergarten book given to a child who is on an assignment to copy one of Monet's paintings.

Don't believe me? This is what I would call a Grade 5 level theological dilemma that the Bible struggles with (I label it as such because I used it against a priest when I was in my 5th grade during one of our arguments). A man is born. The man is baptized. He now has the Holy Spirit within. The man grows to the ripe age of 30. The man converts to Islam. The man decides it was a mistake. The man wants to come back to Christianity. Now here comes the big question: Does the man need a second baptism?

The problem may not be apparent at first, so let me explain. Nowhere in the Bible is a problem of this (gargantuan!) scale tackled. The Ten Commandments do not list it as a Sin, (You Shalt Not Have Any Other Gods Before Me does NOT and will NOT count, as you can easily believe in the same God but follow a different religion, isn't that what Christianity did to the Jews who originally had that very commandment bestowed upon them?). So therefore, if you have not committed a sin by not altering your belief about the monothiestic deity but by changing the route by which you intend to see him/her face to face, then why do you need atonement to go back to your original religion? Even with that argument, assuming that it IS a sin. Does the Holy Spirit leave you every time you sin, or is there somewhere in the Bible where there existed a list of sins that can have God pulled out of you, and a list of sins where God will just switch on your conscience button instead.

My dear foolish pastor, in his urge to try and "save" me, pulled the "Baptism is an enactment, and it symbolizes your unison with the Church once again. It is mandatory upon return to the belief." At which point I laughed, told him he just made up a rule that does not exist in the Bible because he THOUGHT it was so, explained to him that he had thus embraced moral relativism, instead of searching for an absolute answer, and therefore his whole book which tries to prove the opposite was a steaming pile of crap. The question was never about the answer. The question was a way to prove that there is no answer.

I never visited that church again. So tell me, Oleg. What does the Bible say about Euthanizing someone who went into a coma on life support?

The moral concepts in the Bible are ridiculous because they're at a childish level. I can easily figure out that I shouldn't kill people. I've known it since before the first time I read the Bible.

[OlegL]

What does the Bible say about Euthanizing someone who went into a coma on life support?


I honestly don't know how to answer you. I don't have any religious education; however, there is a synagogue not far from my house. I rarely go there, but I might visit it today and ask a rabbi these types of questions.

[mjmacky]

You Shalt Not Have Any Other Gods Before Me does NOT and will NOT count, as you can easily believe in the same God but follow a different religion, isn't that what Christianity did to the Jews who originally had that very commandment bestowed upon them?

This might test how well I retained the details, but it's pretty much along these lines. The original context of that commandment, which stems from the polytheistic and unorganized past of Judaism, was that different tribes were worshipping different gods. There was also the instance as they were being driven out of Babylon to unite the different tribes (whereas Yahweh identified himself as many other names as to say, "see I'm that same guy as the other one, we're already buddies"), but I don't remember if these were related. So it can be interpreted this way, not only could the first commandment be addressing other religions altogether, it might also be interpreted as different sects under the same supposed god. Thank goodness it's not real, because this would be one terrible instruction manual.

[mjmacky]

I might visit it today and ask a rabbi these types of questions.

Answering logical fallacies... members of the cults always provide lackluster and unconvincing answers. I'd prefer you to only post a response if it's truly brilliant in addition to be insightful. The only way you'll be able to tell that's the case is if his response sounds completely wild or zany to you, and only then does it have a 50 % chance of being worth posting.

[bigboab]

A good upbringing, would require your close associates and family to be morally correct in their actions. A case of do as I say and do and not do as I say only. I am excluding what is in the genes in these statements. I have seen children raised by relatives in a good family regress to the criminal life of their blood parents. I remember an old saying. 'Bad blood is bad blood, no matter how it is dressed'. Thank goodness you can get exceptions.

[Snee]

ffs. One of these again. Always a treat.

Anyone who speaks with absolute certainty about whether there is, or isn't a god, a set of gods, or virtually anything else which is unknowable at this point in time is wasting energy. I don't even know who came up with the initial archetype(s) that spawned most modern religions, so it's impossible to say what the initial parameters were.

Personally, I couldn't even start calculating the odds either way, and from what I know, neither could anyone else. But it's good for pissing people off on the internets. On discussion boards it's usually more fun trolling the atheists, though. Everyone can point out the inconsistencies with modern religions, but they'll generally get pretty worked up the first time they run into the idea that them saying there isn't a god/whatever without proof is them believing something too. But I can and have argued on either side, whichever seemed to be underrepresented, or had the most douchebags present.



However, instinctively I'd say that the more specific the religious belief, the more unlikely it is to turn out to be true.

[mjmacky]

ffs. One of these again. Always a treat.

Anyone who speaks with absolute certainty about whether there is, or isn't a god, a set of gods, or virtually anything else which is unknowable at this point in time is wasting energy

Wasting energy implies effort being put forth to a specific goal that can't be achieved. My goal was to start a discussion about the lack of need for religion and pointing out the fallacies in it, so none wasted. Others may come in here to waste their energy, but that applies to any thread really.

One of the other inspirations for me to start this thread at this particular time was a small debate with my brother about it, and it was totally unfulfilling as well as disappointing. I'm testing something at the moment. Can I hear arguments for religion that aren't so transparently ridiculous? I'm becoming bugged by the devout worshipping of those close to me. I'm beginning to lose respect for their opinions if they're capable of such deliberate ignorance. It's harsh, but it's just how I feel.

[OlegL]

or had the most douchebags present.


You never felt that you are the one who's a douchebag?

[Snee]

Oh shut it, you spaz. Go hide in your cave of fail.

mjacky: Fairy nuff.

I can't really in all honesty argue in favour of a specific religion as far as the logical fallacies go. What I can say, looking towards the practical (and I think I've already said this fairly recently), is that religions have shaped our societies, and that any commandments or rules contained within them help to keep some people in line. Historically, I believe they've helped advance our civilisations, by means of enforcing rules.

In a perfect world we're all strong enough, and have a moral compass strong enough to not need a higher meaning/power/whatever to lean on. In reality I believe that some people actually behave themselves better because of religions. Fear of god, or the promise of a reward for behaving well in the afterlife, is something I think works for some people. If it's not true, well, that never stopped some people from believing [I]anything[/I.] Whether the people affected that way outweigh the people who have bad experiences because of religion I can't honestly say, and I don't think anyone else can, because people use it, or hide behind it so you can't really say what's because of religion.

To be honest, this part I'm not very interested in.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that christianity, islam, and most other religions are perfectly harmless, and that if people want them, they should be allowed them, and that generally, they should be left alone to it.

You want posts about how there's too many variables to say anything at all conclusively, I can probably do that if I'm in the mood.

But do we need religions? I've just about exhausted my honest supply of arguments for it. I could wing something for fun, but don't really see the point if everyone knows I'm faking it.

I think that religions could be altogether good, if it weren't for people warping them for their own selfish needs. Kind of like communism.

[mjmacky]

Sure, I can see that, I don't mind people keeping religion to themselves. I guess that's why I have a bigger problem with Christians & Mormons than Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. The prospect of witnessing is what ends up forcing some beliefs into my radar often enough to find it a nuisance. There's a lot I just needed to vent about, like the hypocrisy of being told to explore the truth further by a christian who only reads from christian sources :pinch:

Oh well, I wish I could make this more controversial but I've already gotten a lot off and this wasn't meant to be much of a troll thread to begin with, so unlike me.

[Skiz]

Dude, didn't we already discuss it in the other thread? We need the concept of God because according to the great philosopher Kant, if there is no God, then we are allowed to do things that are immoral; we are allowed not to listen to our conscience if there is no God. Therefore, we need God because we need to fear someone. We need God if we don't want relative morality, but want absolute morality.


You may need him; millions of us do not however. If we "need to fear someone", how do you explain how millions of atheists do just fine without... it?

EDIT: Don't answer that. The fact of evolution and the farce that is religion is so blatantly obvious to me. I don't even like having this discussion with people I like, and in real life. I can't be fucked to discuss this again on a forum. :bye:

[OlegL]

I think that religions could be altogether good, if it weren't for people warping them for their own selfish needs. Kind of like communism.

If you are implying that communism could have served a good purpose if people hadn't used it for their own selfish needs, you are wrong. Communism cannot serve a good purpose and can never serve a good purpose. In theory, it's a utopia, and a utopian world cannot exist in practice. In practice, communist countries have always been dictatorships, and there is no way communism and democracy can exist in one country.

[mjmacky]

I think that religions could be altogether good, if it weren't for people warping them for their own selfish needs. Kind of like communism.

If you are implying that communism could have served a good purpose if people hadn't used it for their own selfish needs, you are wrong. Communism cannot serve a good purpose and can never serve a good purpose. In theory, it's a utopia, and a utopian world cannot exist in practice. In practice, communist countries have always been dictatorships, and there is no way communism and democracy can exist in one country.

Don't confuse utopia with ideology. One of the principles of communism is that all fail or succeed together, it's a response to a dividing gap between the wealthy and the poor. There are more successful cases than the Soviet Union, but those also had an intrinsic major fault

[darkstate01]

Nice thread chaps by the way.

I have no concept about religion,I have no experience with it or know anybody who practices it.

The thought of wasting time,money and my devotion to something i will never see/hear while i'm conscious is totally alien to my tiny mind.

As a child I was told that there's monsters under my bed and ghost's in the closet,It took me roughly 5 years to figure out this is total bullshit,In this same time period, santa got forgotten about along with the Easter bunny,why haven't humans 2000-4000 years later in the technically and educationally equipped world figured out that the monsters and ghosts along with gods are just fairy tales made to make you do something, otherwise, something bad will happen?

Back in the uneducated bronze age middle east, people were a push over, so the powers that be would tell stories about flying horses,humans coming back from the dead and walking around for 4 days or so after having being nailed to a cross then being stabbed with a spear(longinus) in their heart.
Tell me the last time you saw a dead human walking on the street,or a flying horse,or even this god device everyone puts there whole life into worshiping? being drunk or high doesn't count :-)

I haven't seen or heard this god device,my parents have never said they have,I'm lucky enough to have known my grand parents and they haven't mentioned anything about seeing or hearing it either,there's 3 generations of well educated conscious humans not having any interaction with this all powerful device that lives in the sky.

If you genuinely think or know this god device does for sure exist,ask you parents or grand parents if they have ever seen or heard it,you will be amazed at the answer,which will be no,If you are one of very few humans who have seen or heard this god device,show us the proof,a picture,a recording or better still a miraculous event,If you do get that evidence, I'm on board the ship that noah made. And no that didn't exist either,carnivorous animals on board a ship for 40 days with deer and such like,hilarious.

In the scientific age of man as we are today,we have the most powerful telescopes available to us,where the "hell " is this god or heaven,can you point us in the right direction please? I want to see it, "it" = god and heaven.

Why is this god device a fuzzy faced male? I thought "it" was neither, I got told its because males are the dominant of the sexes.

In one middle eastern book, they don't even let the reader/believer see the picture of the god device they praise,they have "it" coloured out out in white, wtf is that all about, If i buy a book, I don't want it redacted. well disrespectful.

Come on humans,grow the fuck up, If you haven't got a mental malfunction and have been brought up correct,you shouldn't need a fairytale book to guide you through life,use common sense,you will be amazed.

Kick these overpaid fakes (pope/pastors) out of there palaces(churches) sell their planes and palaces,and all there paintings and land they own,give it all away to the genuine sick and poor like real honest to "god" good humans .

Watching on the fence as some old fart from one country says to the occupants of another country that its against the religion to wear a condom is very sad,all those poor babies being born with H.I.V,wheres the religion in that act? Wheres the god device to do the curing then?

GROW THE FUCK UP HUMANS,THERE'S NO GOD,NO PROOF IT'S EXISTED IN THE PAST AND STILL NO PROOF THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER.

[mjmacky]

In response to that I have one anecdote

Some years ago, my wife was teaching English in China, and I went to visit her (this was my first time there). The town had a population of just over 600,000 (small Chinese village). We took a trip to the center of town and came across of massive elaborate display of ancient Greek gods and figures, just kind of hanging around doing greek mythology stuff. I was surprised to see this, and in turn started talking to some of the Chinese liaisons we had assisting us with what we needed over there. We basically wanted to know what reason they had all those statues in the center of town and what the people thought about it. What was related to me at that point had a profound effect on my position towards spiritual beliefs and was the responsible catalyst in my transition from agnosticism to atheism (I was still trying to shake of the heavy burden of pentecostal protestantism).

They had no idea what those statues were! So we began to describe what they were, and instead of them explaining to us why there's a Greek mythology themed shopping district in the center of town, they were probing us on what we mean by gods. It was something, that many of them to that point had no exposure to, the concept of deities. It was rather difficult to explain, and even though their English wasn't presenting any major difficulties, the concept seemed too bizarre to fully comprehend. It took me back, and finally revealed a perspective I hadn't experienced before. People who have managed to escape the omnipresent reach of religious prophecy do not have an inherent understanding of god(s). It was that itch somewhere in the nook of my mind that couldn't be scratched any other way, the question of why we were all so familiar with the concept of god. We soak up these ideas when we're younger and forget to reexamine them when we're older.

I don't underplay the difficulty of letting go of one's beliefs, as they've been instilled during our youth. It's the refusal to question it, and acknowledge its lack of self-proclaimed perfection. Oh look at me, I'm rambling again. Well those are my thoughts of self-reflection after reading the post before mine.

[Quarterquack]

Well, macky, you have those arguments with your brother, I have them with my mother. I finally broke her down a few weeks ago and got her to concede to the point that "Neither of us can prove either side without more time."

For the record, darkstate01, my mother insists she saw the virgin Mary. As did hundreds of thousands of others. The event is widely known: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm .

Both my parents saw it. All four of my grandparents saw it. All of them insist that while all they saw was a light, they couldn't figure out a shape or face, while in the "pictures" it's clear that there was a face. Some doctoring happened somewhere, but something odd did happen years ago on the top of that church. There are literally hundreds of thousands of eye witness reports, pictures of doves flying in the middle of the night, and a light was seen by a significant part of my immediate family just hovering/wandering.

I keep getting pushed the question "What is it we saw, and don't say lasers because this was in the 60's! Lasers were not that advanced!" To which my answer is always "I don't know. I won't be afraid to admit my ignorance. However, don't just "logically" jump from seeing a light to the existence of a deity based on what you saw and your prerequisite knowledge. If I had told someone that what they saw was a toe of a massive monster in the sky, and they believed it, it does NOT make it true."

[OlegL]

For the record, darkstate01, my mother insists she saw the virgin Mary. As did hundreds of thousands of others. The event is widely known: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm .

Both my parents saw it. All four of my grandparents saw it.

Rofl, I am sure people never saw Virgin Mary in Cairo in 1968. Your mother and your grandparents never saw her. I don't know what that event was, but I am sure it didn't have anything to do with Virgin Mary.

[999969999]

Dude, didn't we already discuss it in the other thread? We need the concept of God because according to the great philosopher Kant, if there is no God, then we are allowed to do things that are immoral; we are allowed not to listen to our conscience if there is no God. Therefore, we need God because we need to fear someone. We need God if we don't want relative morality, but want absolute morality.


You may need him; millions of us do not however. If we "need to fear someone", how do you explain how millions of atheists do just fine without... it?

EDIT: Don't answer that. The fact of evolution and the farce that is religion is so blatantly obvious to me. I don't even like having this discussion with people I like, and in real life. I can't be fucked to discuss this again on a forum. :bye:

I agree. Arguing about religion is a complete waste of time. And on that note, here are some quotes about time that I find interesting...

You live longer once you realize that any time spent being unhappy is wasted. ~Ruth E. Renkl

You may delay, but time will not. ~Benjamin Franklin

Contemplation often makes life miserable. We should act more, think less, and stop watching ourselves live. ~Nicolas de Chamfort

Gather ye rose-buds while ye may;
Old Time is still a-flying;
And this same flower that smiles today,
Tomorrow will be dying.
~Robert Herrick


I try to treat each evening and weekend as little slices of retirement because no one is guaranteed a lengthy one at the end of their career. ~Mike Hammar


The more side roads you stop to explore, the less likely that life will pass you by. ~Robert Brault


If we would only give, just once, the same amount of reflection to what we want to get out of life that we give to the question of what to do with a two weeks' vacation, we would be startled at our false standards and the aimless procession of our busy days. ~Dorothy Canfield Fisher

Every day of our lives we are on the verge of making those slight changes that would make all the difference. ~Mignon McLaughlin, The Neurotic's Notebook, 1960

Each day is an opportunity to travel back into tomorrow's past and change it. ~Robert Brault

If you could travel back in time to the present moment, what would you do differently? ~Robert Brault



Whether it's the best of times or the worst of times, it's the only time we've got. ~Art Buchwald

If you woke up breathing, congratulations! You have another chance. ~Andrea Boydston


Life is always walking up to us and saying, "Come on in, the living's fine," and what do we do? Back off and take its picture. ~Russell Baker


There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want. ~Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes


What would be the use of immortality to a person who cannot use well a half an hour. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Remember you must die whether you sit about moping all day long or whether on feast days you stretch out in a green field, happy with a bottle of Falernian from your innermost cellar. ~Horace


Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them. ~Dion Boucicault

Every day is an opportunity to make a new happy ending. ~Author Unknown

The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. ~Rabindranath Tagore

The question for each man is not what he would do if he had the means, time, influence, and educational advantages, but what he will do with the things he has. ~Hamilton


Live as you will wish to have lived when you are dying. ~Christian Furchtegott Gellert


Write it on your heart that every day is the best day in the year. No man has learned anything rightly, until he knows that every day is Doomsday. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson


Later never exists. ~Author Unknown


Many people take no care of their money till they come nearly to the end of it, and others do just the same with their time. ~Johann von Goethe

That it will never come again
Is what makes life so sweet.
~Emily Dickinson


Let us endeavor to live so that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. ~Mark Twain


Life is what happens to us while we are making other plans. ~Allen Saunders, 1957


The value of moments, when cast up, is immense, if well employed; if thrown away, their loss is irrevocable. ~Lord Chesterfield

Lost time is never found again. ~Benjamin Franklin


The bitterest tears shed over graves are for words left unsaid and for deeds left undone. ~Harriet Beecher Stowe, Little Foxes, 1865

I wasted time, and now doth time waste me. ~William Shakespeare


Only that day dawns to which we are awake. ~Henry David Thoreau


Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop to look around once in a while you could miss it. ~From the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off

The future has a way of arriving unannounced. ~George F. Will

Time goes, you say? Ah no!
Alas, Time stays, we go.
~Henry Austin Dobson

Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils. ~Hector Berlioz

You don't get to choose how you're going to die. Or when. You can only decide how you're going to live. Now. ~Joan Baez

The follies which a man regrets most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. ~Helen Rowland

What a folly to dread the thought of throwing away life at once, and yet have no regard to throwing it away by parcels and piecemeal. ~John Howe

The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it. ~Author unknown, sometimes attributed to W.M. Lewis

Each day comes bearing its own gifts. Untie the ribbons. ~Ruth Ann Schabacker

The moment when you first wake up in the morning is the most wonderful of the twenty-four hours. No matter how weary or dreary you may feel, you possess the certainty that, during the day that lies before you, absolutely anything may happen. And the fact that it practically always doesn't, matters not a jot. The possibility is always there. ~Monica Baldwin

We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance. ~Japanese Proverb

Don't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is the special occasion. ~Author Unknown

Don't be fooled by the calendar. There are only as many days in the year as you make use of. ~Charles Richards

Waiting for the fish to bite or waiting for wind to fly a kite. Or waiting around for Friday night or waiting perhaps for their Uncle Jake or a pot to boil or a better break or a string of pearls or a pair of pants or a wig with curls or another chance. Everyone is just waiting. ~Dr. Seuss

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think. ~Chinese Proverb

Live every day as if it were your last and then some day you'll be right. ~H.H. "Breaker" Morant

Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive. ~Elbert Hubbard

As you grow older, you'll find the only things you regret are the things you didn't do. ~Zachary Scott

Spend the afternoon. You can't take it with you. ~Annie Dillard

Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today. ~James Dean

Life is not lost by dying; life is lost minute by minute, day by dragging day, in all the thousand small uncaring ways. ~Stephen Vincent Benét

There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval. ~George Santayana, "War Shrines," Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies, 1922

For a long time it had seemed to me that life was about to begin - real life. But there was always some obstacle in the way. Something to be got through first, some unfinished business, time still to be served, a debt to be paid. Then life would begin. At last it dawned on me that these obstacles were my life. ~Fr. Alfred D'Souza

Be happy while you're living, for you're a long time dead. ~Scottish Proverb


I'm less interested in why we're here. I'm wholly devoted to while we're here. ~Erika Harris

I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read and all the friends I want to see. ~John Burroughs

You will never find time for anything. If you want time you must make it. ~Charles Buxton

Some luck lies in not getting what you thought you wanted but getting what you have, which once you have got it you may be smart enough to see is what you would have wanted had you known.
Garrison Keillor
US humorist & radio broadcaster (1942 - )

[mjmacky]

9's, would you at least clean up your post so that it doesn't look so sloppy? Also, not surprised that you managed to avoid writing your own narrative again.

[999969999]

9's, would you at least clean up your post so that it doesn't look so sloppy? Also, not surprised that you managed to avoid writing your own narrative again.

Oh, come on! Can't you at least appreciate that these are some very interesting quotes? Far more interesting than anything I could write on my own at this point. At least I am interesting in learning from these other people, and I'm willing to listen to what they had to say.

[mjmacky]

9's, would you at least clean up your post so that it doesn't look so sloppy? Also, not surprised that you managed to avoid writing your own narrative again.

Oh, come on! Can't you at least appreciate that these are some very interesting quotes? Far more interesting than anything I could write on my own at this point. At least I am interesting in learning from these other people, and I'm willing to listen to what they had to say.

First, I've never really heard you make a point and have no idea if it would be more interesting, so I'll have to take you at your word on that issue.

Your long post has all kinds of awkward line breaks and shifting between single space and double space. It's too sloppy to even bother reading. You'll have to learn sometime (and don't take it at superficial value), but presentation matters.

[IdolEyes787]

God is an idea , therefore God exists. Heaven on the other hand is an aspiration so it's reality is a lot less certain.
Btw the church/organized religion is an institution and as so finite and completely separate from the idea of God.

[megabyteme]

God is an idea , therefore God exists. Heaven on the other hand is an aspiration so it's reality is a lot less certain.
Btw the church/organized religion is an institution and as so finite and completely separate from the idea of God.

I agree that God is an idea, but I typically do not see ideas "existing" unless there is some way to manifest that idea. How does this concept of God take form from that idea?

[mjmacky]

God is an idea , therefore God exists. Heaven on the other hand is an aspiration so it's reality is a lot less certain.
Btw the church/organized religion is an institution and as so finite and completely separate from the idea of God.

Not so fast. I may define god as an idea, but a theist would define him as their supreme master that likes to play with its human toys. Therefore, you can't say god exists with blanket logic. Heaven and Eden can be very specific or general terms equated with paradise, so I think context matters here too.

OK, so about the church. When I wanted to remain a believer, but had some issues with some of the concepts, I broke away from the church. Mostly because the people there were not just limited in their capacity to address my concerns, but seemed to actively try to sabotage it. I think my move to agnosticism and atheism was delayed due to my ties with church. In terms of relativism, I could find more respect for devout believers who do not subscribe to church visitation than the ones who do. It's just the nuttiest and most fervent believers have that sort of mob mentality, mostly due to reinforcement of synthesized reality among the community they grow at those places.

[A]

God exists, you can't prove otherwise. God doesn't exist, you can't prove otherwise. I exist, therefore I am.

[megabyteme]

God exists, you can't prove otherwise. God doesn't exist, you can't prove otherwise. I exist, therefore I am.

As far as I know, you are just an idea. Some might argue a bad one. :P

@macky: I am hoping Idol can expand on the concept he was putting out there. I would like to see if he can give it legs, or not...

[IdolEyes787]

I didn't realize that something needed concrete manifestation to exist. Take hope for example .Is hope real ? You can neither see nor touch it, only feel it. So real or not?
@ mjmacky by your same logic like Abybeats says, prove otherwise.

[bigboab]

If something does not manifest then it is like hope. Just an idea or notion.

[Quarterquack]

I didn't realize that something needed concrete manifestation to exist. Take hope for example .Is hope real ? You can neither see nor touch it, only feel it. So real or not?

:no:

Don't cheat. Hope is a descriptive word about an abstract feeling. It's like asking whether Books or Unicorns exist. Pragmatic laws apply here. We use blanket words to direct attention or allude to concepts; the beauty of human language is the displacement and continuity of a concept mentioned in speech that passes by. Regardless, while I won't get into the many complexities of linguistic research in the modern day scientific community, you're committing a logical fallacy. Just because something has a name doesn't mean it has to exist, or has to continue existing. The laws of language allows for both the existent and the non-existent to be named.

I just mined a hypothetical stone that has a purple hemisphere sitting on top of a diamond encrusted slate pyramid and called it Johnny. Does Johnny exist? Not necessarily, but that doesn't stop me from naming the non-existent. Two Scientists can discover a mechanism at the same time, and each can name it differently. The referencing does not change the existential property of the process they observed. By the same logic, I can call Hope by a different term, such as Blurgh, but that doesn't change the property of that which I reference. It is still the worst of all evils. And we could both still experience it. This is without even going into cognitive and functional brain scans that can "show you" Hope with your own eyes.

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote. Not essentially a snipe at Aby, more like a general foot-note, that before people argue about existence and deities, they might want to read a rich history of over 2000 years of philosophical arguments on the matter, than limiting themselves to what they could come up with from sitting in front of television sets.

[OlegL]

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote.

Descarted said, "I think; therefore I am", but what AbyBeats said was "I exist; therefore I am."

[mjmacky]

Point was, given a variety of contextual meanings, you need to define what you are claiming to exist.

As far as proving a god exists or does not exist, you'd also have to examine what you mean by "exist". There's our physical world, a metaphysical world that some believe can interact with our physical world, and then there's the magical anything goes fantasia where objects (people/places/things) only exist as a concept. So if we use "exist" to mean things that occur in the physical world, and to grant some leeway things that exist in the metaphysical world, lets address the theory. If you want to state the case that god exists, you currently suffer the burden of absolutely no proof indicating god's existence. If you propose god does not exists, his absence is supporting proof of that claim. The absence of something doesn't outright prove something doesn't exist, but it's the only proof you can obtain by the design of the inquiry. The biggest confusion here is that people contextualize feelings or interpretations as proof of god's existence, and they're totally illegitimate. So as far as I can tell, god doesn't exists 1, god exists 0.

[darkstate01]

For the record, darkstate01, my mother insists she saw the virgin Mary. As did hundreds of thousands of others. The event is widely known: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm . Total and utter nonsense,Proof would equal to a picture as a photographic picture of this virgin mary thousands of years ago,What the hell does she really look like? Photographs of the time were not even invented back then,Some human draws a picture of Jesus christ/Mary and everyone presumes that's what he/she really looks like thousands of years later,come on really, In Europe we think this middle eastern Jesus has blonde hair and blue eyes.

Having a bunch of believers saying that they saw there idle isn't proof to me. Neither is a glowing light above a church that's similar shape and design to any human designed statue,Saying that a virgin gave birth to a son of god is even more unbelievable.

In the Tudor time's in England,Henry's soldiers, headed by the brutalist Cromwell,went into churches and stole all the gold and silver they could and also uncovered that these churches were suckering there followers into believing that there statues were crying blood and what ever other liquid suited the time. Believe me when i say that some,not all,but some humans are very easily pushed over by so called proof that this or that is real, these god believers are among the easily suckered sadly to say.

DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE,do research then decide.

[A]

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

edit:

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote.
I don't know who Descrates is, or any other philosopher as such; except Laozi and Vivekananda. My pops kinda "locked" me out of anything related to philosophy; saying: "When you are mature enough, philosophy will enrich you. Until then, experience the world for yourself and keep an open mind" (something along those lines). The only philosophical discussion I ever do is, once every weekend with my father, while playing go. So ...

[mjmacky]

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

Sure I've heard the phrase casually thrown around. I have a feeling that you didn't quite comprehend what I wrote. What I explored was the design of the question and what kind of evidence could be used to test the theory. By design of the question, absence is the only evidence that could be used to support the theory of non existence in a general sense. It's faulted by design. In comparison, there are all types of evidence that could be used to support the existence of gods, however it is completely deficient of any evidence. So in regards to the theory that gods do not exist, we have absence of existence (which would negate the theory), absence of any evidence supporting antithesis, and no compelling logical reason to be believe they do exist. So even in its faulted design, the theory of non existence should be the more popular. This process is confined to a very limited space, so let's turn back to reality.

Now I don't think most invest that many brain cycles into their beliefs. I think for most it comes down to this:
believe --> if right, saved --> if wrong, none the wiser after death
don't belief --> if right, non the wiser --> if wrong, totally fucked

An atheist has more to lose if wrong, while a theist only has to hope they chose the right religion/god/cult. I have heard people approach their beliefs this way, and to me it's a cop out, but that's for pussies. All this bullshit that we experience here... if gods turned out to exist, I would rather spend my eternity as far away from them as possible. Even if my soul will be tormented for all that eternity, or I'm reborn as a goat or some shit.

[A]

If you are after proof, you have to wait; so that science (hopefully) advances to solve the ultimate questions relating to anything and everything. Or, you can contribute to the advancement by being a scientist yourself. Else, you can waste all the brain cycles you want; weaving and reasoning whatever you like. Also, you can start threads like this and argue with each other, where everyone throws their imaginations at each other. Is it fun? Yes. Anything conclusive comes out of it? No.

I pity the girl in that first post really. She makes fun of creationists, and yet she is a firm believer of the theory of evolution which she has no first hand knowledge of. What differentiates her from those creationists' out there? Oh wait, she must be a subscriber of American scientist, which makes her obviously right, right? People who preach what others have said to them are the lamest of all.


Sure I've heard the phrase casually thrown around. I have a feeling that you didn't quite comprehend what I wrote. What I explored was the design of the question and what kind of evidence could be used to test the theory. By design of the question, absence is the only evidence that could be used to support the theory of non existence in a general sense. It's faulted by design.
Proving absence of God is what the theory of non existence is trying to prove, Isn't it? How is it faulted by design?


In comparison, there are all types of evidence that could be used to support the existence of gods, however it is completely deficient of any evidence.
Isn't that contradicting each other?


So in regards to the theory that gods do not exist, we have absence of existence (which would negate the theory),
We have absence of evidence of existence. Who proved they don't exist at all?


absence of any evidence supporting antithesis, and no compelling logical reason to be believe they do exist. So even in its faulted design, the theory of non existence should be the more popular. This process is confined to a very limited space, so let's turn back to reality.
eh!?

[bigboab]

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?":blink:



A dog could be a god to a dyslexic Bigboab, Circa 10a.m.

[A]

A dog could be a god to a dyslexic
Only in English :naughty:

[j2k4]

At one end of things, you are a collection of those types of people who hang together on internet boards anxiously awaiting a brave customer or two to come play cat/mouse.

You've had no takers.

At the other end of things, you argue amongst yourselves about the nature of a thing that is an opiate to great masses of people, a thing the base effect of which is (these days, at any rate) positive, it's entire cost born by it's adherents?

Really, now - tell us how we're an impediment to progress - it's water off a duck's back, friends.

[999969999]

http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/ad15/eagar9/ratbert.gif

[mjmacky]

I wrote post # 49 not 5 minutes before I passed out, there are some errors. Instead of fixing all of them, I'll just address your post directly.


If you are after proof, you have to wait; so that science (hopefully) advances to solve the ultimate questions relating to anything and everything. Or, you can contribute to the advancement by being a scientist yourself.

I am a scientist, and even though what I do can sometimes feel pointless and mundane, I know better than to make a mockery of my efforts by trying to apply science to exploring the existence of gods. At best, I feel it only deserves a philosophical debate, leave the joke of treating it seriously only to those who believe.


I pity the girl in that first post really. She makes fun of creationists, and yet she is a firm believer of the theory of evolution which she has no first hand knowledge of. What differentiates her from those creationists' out there? Oh wait, she must be a subscriber of American scientist, which makes her obviously right, right? People who preach what others have said to them are the lamest of all.

What are you claiming as first hand knowledge, and what do American scientists have to do with anything? Are you saying you feel sorry for someone who understands evolutionary theory and doesn't dispute it? I'm getting a vibe about you, please reveal more.


Proving absence of God is what the theory of non existence is trying to prove, Isn't it? How is it faulted by design?

The question is faulted because you can't prove what is essentially an infinite negative. Your only evidence to say that something doesn't exist in all time and all space. The only evidence able to provided is the absence in limited time and limited spaces. I feel I explained it poorly in my near slumber. I can ramble on more, but it feels like a redundancy of words, so I hope that covers it for now.



In comparison, there are all types of evidence that could be used to support the existence of gods, however it is completely deficient of any evidence.
Isn't that contradicting each other?

Not exactly. There are a number of different ways you can provide evidence of gods existence. A photograph of god as he sits down at your dinner table, lecturing your daughter about abortions. An amateur porno film as one of the gods comes down in the "form" of a beast and rapes a woman. Actual miracles (miracles != low chance of success). All of our kitchen appliances start running around preaching the gospel, etc. They are almost infinite, yet not a single shred of ACTUAL evidence to provide for the existence of gods. So I think I cleared up the points I was trying to make.

[mjmacky]

At one end of things, you are a collection of those types of people who hang together on internet boards anxiously awaiting a brave customer or two to come play cat/mouse.

You've had no takers.

At the other end of things, you argue amongst yourselves about the nature of a thing that is an opiate to great masses of people, a thing the base effect of which is (these days, at any rate) positive, it's entire cost born by it's adherents?

Really, now - tell us how we're an impediment to progress - it's water off a duck's back, friends.

I do this because I love discussion. I don't have any physical interest to go forth and disprove possibility of existence, "converting" others to disbelief. The discussion is fun, and for the most part, universal. There are all types of discussion I like to have, but I don't know anyone here I would discuss electron transfer processes leading to radical shifts (from cation to compound) and its stability as a catalyst, that raising PSI in the turbo leads to better gas mileage with the same driving practices, or that 9 reference frames vs. 5 reference frames is a rather pointless gain in bitrate efficiency. These things I discuss elsewhere. These things are also very limited in scope, thus I think I get more pleasure debating religion and spirituality than anything else.

So I'm not quite after the mouse. Have you ever had cats? Sometimes they just like to get a crazy look in there eyes and swat at the air. I actually find the question of existence to be insignificant myself, but I won't shy away from discussing it either. The more important questions I feel are: Does spirituality actually have a net positive effect (I think no)? Are our capabilities of managing and adapting morality with our system of laws and logic able to completely replace an imaginary system? Then again, they aren't that important either, to discuss them will really lead nowhere. But exploring your opinions, thoughts and logic on something always advances one's mind, and that can't be all that bad, can it?

[j2k4]

At one end of things, you are a collection of those types of people who hang together on internet boards anxiously awaiting a brave customer or two to come play cat/mouse.

You've had no takers.

At the other end of things, you argue amongst yourselves about the nature of a thing that is an opiate to great masses of people, a thing the base effect of which is (these days, at any rate) positive, it's entire cost born by it's adherents?

Really, now - tell us how we're an impediment to progress - it's water off a duck's back, friends.

I do this because I love discussion. I don't have any physical interest to go forth and disprove possibility of existence, "converting" others to disbelief. The discussion is fun, and for the most part, universal. There are all types of discussion I like to have, but I don't know anyone here I would discuss electron transfer processes leading to radical shifts (from cation to compound) and its stability as a catalyst, that raising PSI in the turbo leads to better gas mileage with the same driving practices, or that 9 reference frames vs. 5 reference frames is a rather pointless gain in bitrate efficiency. These things I discuss elsewhere. These things are also very limited in scope, thus I think I get more pleasure debating religion and spirituality than anything else.

So I'm not quite after the mouse. Have you ever had cats? Sometimes they just like to get a crazy look in there eyes and swat at the air. I actually find the question of existence to be insignificant myself, but I won't shy away from discussing it either. The more important questions I feel are: Does spirituality actually have a net positive effect (I think no)? Are our capabilities of managing and adapting morality with our system of laws and logic able to completely replace an imaginary system? Then again, they aren't that important either, to discuss them will really lead nowhere. But exploring your opinions, thoughts and logic on something always advances one's mind, and that can't be all that bad, can it?

Aye to all of that, I guess, and I have four cats, including a Pet Sematary reclamation - my one in-house experiment with cloning.

I guess it's that I've been through this particular discussion so many times there is little for me to add, apart from the preceding view.

I mean, they even have their own 'course' Book.

Let me put it to you this way:

If you are not of similar mind, what you have to fear from a believer could fit in a thimble, and when it comes to fighting religion, start with the worst first.

EDIT-

Funny that you should use a "turbo" analogy; my life has momentarily been turned upside-down by the death of a snail about the size of my fist.

[mjmacky]

I guess it's that I've been through this particular discussion so many times there is little for me to add, apart from the preceding view.

It's been a little while for me, and given circumstances felt it was time to revisit. I often find that even though my core viewpoints don't typically change, I'll often change the way I explain it, refining it and attempting to shorten it. Later on I'll sound even more like a pretentious intellectual. But with different people you can discover different perspectives, and indirectly pick up something by grabbing from the periphery.


my life has momentarily been turned upside-down by the death of a snail about the size of my fist.

Wait, what? How so?

[Hologram]

http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/ad15/eagar9/ratbert.gif

That shit isn't even remotely funny.

[megabyteme]

@macky: as a scientist, do you believe in the existence of dimensions beyond the 4 we are used to/can easily measure?


As for the idea that topics have been beaten to death, I disagree. While many of us have had these discussions here, and IRL, the argument could be taken to nearly any topic- and those who have spent more than a decade studying after high school would have little reason to discuss what they have learned. With a forum (a place to discuss topics of interest), it is valuable to open these things up, and see where they go.

That said, there also seems to be a growing anti-religion movement online. It appears to me popular to bash religion/God while online (not necessarily being done by the OP here, BTW).

I am personally moving in the direction of finding a place for religion, and possibly even Jesus, in my life. As someone who has now had the opportunity to attend two fantastic private universities, I have experienced what it means to be surrounded by people who live their lives in accordance to (many) of the teachings of JC. I have also studied a fair amount of philosophy (one class shy of a minor), I found contradictions, and failings in every one -with the exception of JC. You subtract the Son of God aspects out, and His teachings are quite exceptional.

So, for me, I see value in revisiting these "old" discussions as a way to reassess my life, and whether or not I am willing to "drink the kool-aid". The idea of a life story, and the growing thoughts that mine is coming together (with tragedies, and successes) almost like a pre-written novel, have made me consider that there is not only more than I can see, but that there may be something influencing my life that is beyond my understanding.

[OlegL]

I have also studied a fair amount of philosophy (one class shy of a minor), I found contradictions, and failings in every one -with the exception of JC.

But some philosophers such as St. Augustine and Descartes were religious.

[megabyteme]

I have also studied a fair amount of philosophy (one class shy of a minor), I found contradictions, and failings in every one -with the exception of JC.

But some philosophers such as St. Augustine and Descartes were religious.

Being religious does not make you right. However, it is possible (as these guys did) to make valid points. JC has the most complete, usable teachings for life that I have come across. I'm saying that I believe there is certainly more for me to explore, and use. These teachings, may or may not, have "benefits" that extend beyond what we experience here. (This is where I stand at the edge of the cliff and ask myself if I want to take that "leap of faith". It is an unknown, and remains so.)

[mjmacky]

@macky: as a scientist, do you believe in the existence of dimensions beyond the 4 we are used to/can easily measure?

Well to start with, we don't make measurements in the 4th dimension, i.e. it's not an observational dimension. I am aware of its use in physical and computational chemistry, but strictly in a mathematical sense. If my first statement is incorrect to your knowledge, please address it as I'm all ears. That being said, I'll turn up the humility dial and say studying within 3 dimensions is hard enough, there's still an infinite amount of information we don't, and will never understand. I present it this way, folklore dictates that deities have supposedly acted within our 3 dimensions, but none of it is verifiable. I think it's a legitimate starting point to examine in our 3 dimensions.



As for the idea that topics have been beaten to death, I disagree. While many of us have had these discussions here, and IRL, the argument could be taken to nearly any topic- and those who have spent more than a decade studying after high school would have little reason to discuss what they have learned. With a forum (a place to discuss topics of interest), it is valuable to open these things up, and see where they go.

That said, there also seems to be a growing anti-religion movement online. It appears to me popular to bash religion/God while online (not necessarily being done by the OP here, BTW).

I'm as vocal about it in real life as I am on the forums. Though, I am personally restricted by my nature from being able to simply bash religion, both due to past perspective and chaotic mind. I think the trend is more reactionary to the realization that atheist perspectives aren't appreciated in dictating policy in secular governments. Atheist leaders do not have to subscribe to alternative ideologies like communism and marxism, as have been in the past. Why not have just a pragmatic, atheist, democratic leader? Well, democratic is the key adjective I guess. I'm yearning for a future with a diminished presence of spiritual ideology without the need of a replacement.


I am personally moving in the direction of finding a place for religion, and possibly even Jesus, in my life. As someone who has now had the opportunity to attend two fantastic private universities, I have experienced what it means to be surrounded by people who live their lives in accordance to (many) of the teachings of JC. I have also studied a fair amount of philosophy (one class shy of a minor), I found contradictions, and failings in every one -with the exception of JC. You subtract the Son of God aspects out, and His teachings are quite exceptional.

I do see where you're going with this, but in the same manner you wouldn't be just limiting your influence to the JC himself are you? I appreciate the influence some of these historical figures can impart on us, while selectively removing the parts that just don't fit. The problem I feel is there are individuals, whether by majority or not, that feel everyone needs to adopt the entire narrative. There was a quote by Mohammed (that I'll butcher) that goes like this, "Praise be to Allah, but first tether your camel". It was quite significant to me at the time I heard it, as there was someone I knew that was allowing her faith to dictate her entire life, to her own detriment. It was incredibly saddening to see someone's faith wreck their life on a personal level.


So, for me, I see value in revisiting these "old" discussions as a way to reassess my life, and whether or not I am willing to "drink the kool-aid". The idea of a life story, and the growing thoughts that mine is coming together (with tragedies, and successes) almost like a pre-written novel, have made me consider that there is not only more than I can see, but that there may be something influencing my life that is beyond my understanding.

I too go through periods of reassessment, and perhaps I am at that place again. I live my life in focused phases, in nearly all aspects (food, beliefs, hobbies), maybe it's time to revisit this one... dunno

[mjmacky]

But some philosophers such as St. Augustine and Descartes were religious.

WTF Oleg, make a point before you finish the post. You only pointed out that some people were religious, one of them a saint nonetheless. What are you implying?

[OlegL]

But some philosophers such as St. Augustine and Descartes were religious.

WTF Oleg, make a point before you finish the post. You only pointed out that some people were religious, one of them a saint nonetheless. What are you implying?

I am implying that sometimes philosophy and religion can go hand in hand, and some people were religious philosophers. But megabyteme, as far as I understood, implied that philosophy contradicts religion.

[megabyteme]

Well to start with, we don't make measurements in the 4th dimension, i.e. it's not an observational dimension. I am aware of its use in physical and computational chemistry, but strictly in a mathematical sense. If my first statement is incorrect to your knowledge, please address it as I'm all ears. That being said, I'll turn up the humility dial and say studying within 3 dimensions is hard enough, there's still an infinite amount of information we don't, and will never understand. I present it this way, folklore dictates that deities have supposedly acted within our 3 dimensions, but none of it is verifiable. I think it's a legitimate starting point to examine in our 3 dimensions.

I've understood time to be the 4th dimension. Once you go beyond, it does get very weird. I was introducing the idea as a possibility that the existence of alternate, simultaneous dimensions (which has been expressed by many devout atheists such as Hawking) could contain unmeasurable, yet influential interactions- and possibly creation of our universe. We (our entire universe) very well be nothing more than pets on someone else's bedroom dresser. And, if we were "pets" it would not be to much of a stretch of the imagination to see how they might influence our lives.

I will throw this out as one of my most far-reaching thoughts that we may be FAR less significant than many would like to believe. Would this unseen force be what many would recognize as god-like? I think so. Would it explain why our prayers go unanswered? Perhaps.

I tend to dismiss the meddling of the church(es) in our attempt to understand what our existence means/represents/serves/is. I do not believe they have the answers. If they did, they would keep them to themselves, and keep the massive power they have over the masses. Fact: religious organizations are another government entity. Their influences (still) are extraordinary.



I'm as vocal about it in real life as I am on the forums. Though, I am personally restricted by my nature from being able to simply bash religion, both due to past perspective and chaotic mind. I think the trend is more reactionary to the realization that atheist perspectives aren't appreciated in dictating policy in secular governments. Atheist leaders do not have to subscribe to alternative ideologies like communism and marxism, as have been in the past. Why not have just a pragmatic, atheist, democratic leader? Well, democratic is the key adjective I guess. I'm yearning for a future with a diminished presence of spiritual ideology without the need of a replacement.

Atheists are too much of a wildcard for most people. Immediately, when stating you are an atheist, there tends to be a wall created between "believers" and non-believers. When choosing "leaders", it is a much "safer" bet to go with someone who has a set of core beliefs that match the majority of the people. I don't know if atheist could ever have that kind of connection with the masses. Even among atheist, there is no common set of core values. Where would an atheist stand on abortion? Could be anywhere. Other issues that have spiritual-based, "established" (by the church) beliefs. It's just easier to "connect" with religious people- even if you are an atheist, at least you can expect certain things from those claiming to be religious.


I do see where you're going with this, but in the same manner you wouldn't be just limiting your influence to the JC himself are you? I appreciate the influence some of these historical figures can impart on us, while selectively removing the parts that just don't fit. The problem I feel is there are individuals, whether by majority or not, that feel everyone needs to adopt the entire narrative. There was a quote by Mohammed (that I'll butcher) that goes like this, "Praise be to Allah, but first tether your camel". It was quite significant to me at the time I heard it, as there was someone I knew that was allowing her faith to dictate her entire life, to her own detriment. It was incredibly saddening to see someone's faith wreck their life on a personal level.

I'm not going to dismiss everything I have learned, but am looking at the possibility of incorporating more of those ideas into my life. Forgiveness is an incredibly powerful, comforting element.


I too go through periods of reassessment, and perhaps I am at that place again. I live my life in focused phases, in nearly all aspects (food, beliefs, hobbies), maybe it's time to revisit this one... dunno

One of the most beneficial things I have experienced is getting my core beliefs challenged, and after licking my wounds, realizing that there were other possibilities that were better than what I had previously held.

[mjmacky]

I am implying that sometimes philosophy and religion can go hand in hand, and some people were religious philosophers. But megabyteme, as far as I understood, implied that philosophy contradicts religion.

OK, you needed to state that. That seems to bug you on the premise that you are assuming philosophy is infallible. Rather, it's quite the opposite.

[IdolEyes787]

I didn't realize that something needed concrete manifestation to exist. Take hope for example .Is hope real ? You can neither see nor touch it, only feel it. So real or not?

:no:

Don't cheat. Hope is a descriptive word about an abstract feeling. It's like asking whether Books or Unicorns exist. Pragmatic laws apply here. We use blanket words to direct attention or allude to concepts; the beauty of human language is the displacement and continuity of a concept mentioned in speech that passes by. Regardless, while I won't get into the many complexities of linguistic research in the modern day scientific community, you're committing a logical fallacy. Just because something has a name doesn't mean it has to exist, or has to continue existing. The laws of language allows for both the existent and the non-existent to be named.

I just mined a hypothetical stone that has a purple hemisphere sitting on top of a diamond encrusted slate pyramid and called it Johnny. Does Johnny exist? Not necessarily, but that doesn't stop me from naming the non-existent. Two Scientists can discover a mechanism at the same time, and each can name it differently. The referencing does not change the existential property of the process they observed. By the same logic, I can call Hope by a different term, such as Blurgh, but that doesn't change the property of that which I reference. It is still the worst of all evils. And we could both still experience it. This is without even going into cognitive and functional brain scans that can "show you" Hope with your own eyes.

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote. Not essentially a snipe at Aby, more like a general foot-note, that before people argue about existence and deities, they might want to read a rich history of over 2000 years of philosophical arguments on the matter, than limiting themselves to what they could come up with from sitting in front of television sets.

Sorry I having been following along.As things get a little too weighty I generally compensate by going to the beach.

Anyway I didn't "cheat" .You are too much the pragmatist and not enough the poet.

Just because something has a name doesn't mean it has to exist, or has to continue existing. The laws of language allows for both the existent and the non-existent to be named.
We use "God" as a word of convenience I think it speaks to too many multiple meanings for the "idea" be so easily defined by one word.
Anyway I spoke to the idea being the reality .Maybe that "is" God - the ability of faith to affect things.Or God may be simply the undefinable or unexplainable . Or as we all live in a prison of our own perceived reality who is to say what indeed is truly real anyway.You're clearly not as fat/thin as you think you .

Or maybe to quote someone not Descartes "A rose by any other name....."

[megabyteme]

You are too much the pragmatist and not enough the poet.

With his frail, twisted fingers, he could never hold a quill pen. :noes:

[A]

I pity the girl in that first post really. She makes fun of creationists, and yet she is a firm believer of the theory of evolution which she has no first hand knowledge of. What differentiates her from those creationists' out there? Oh wait, she must be a subscriber of American scientist, which makes her obviously right, right? People who preach what others have said to them are the lamest of all.

What are you claiming as first hand knowledge, and what do American scientists have to do with anything? Are you saying you feel sorry for someone who understands evolutionary theory and doesn't dispute it? I'm getting a vibe about you, please reveal more.
1. First hand knowledge is when you do research yourself. Second hand knowledge is when you read and understand the research. Third hand knowledge is when you take the above two for granted (aka classroom learning), put trust in them, and then go around preaching without knowing jack shit. So, where along those lines did the last category of people turn into a blind believers (which the creationists are)? I'll leave it to you; to figure that out.

2. http://www.americanscientist.org/ is a science journal ...

3. Stay away from me you freak, I ain't gonna reveal anything, shu shu.


I am a scientist, and even though what I do can sometimes feel pointless and mundane, I know better than to make a mockery of my efforts by trying to apply science to exploring the existence of gods. At best, I feel it only deserves a philosophical debate, leave the joke of treating it seriously only to those who believe.
I get it. You want a philosophical debate for which the source is nothingness; but, I like to sit on the fence and watch both sides destroy the imaginary philosophical castles. Lets part ways.

P.S: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I matured, my talks matured, my thoughts matured, my reasoning matured. Still the world is a mystery to me. Therefore, I can only hope there is another plane of thinking, to which I transcend, so as to make sense of another layer of abstraction. So said the Master Zen Guru, AbyBeats. (And yea, I know what you are going to write next megabyteme)

[IdolEyes787]

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

[mjmacky]

1. First hand knowledge is when you do research yourself. Second hand knowledge is when you read and understand the research. Third hand knowledge is when you take the above two for granted (aka classroom learning), put trust in them, and then go around preaching without knowing jack shit. So, where along those lines did the last category of people turn into a blind believers (which the creationists are)? I'll leave it to you; to figure that out.

From what I gathered then, based on your earlier message, you assume no one can rightfully speak on the subject of evolution unless they are directly affiliated with the research involved? Using your ranking, we should all aspire to be second hand learners. That same ranking doesn't apply to creationist "theory", as there is no evidence to support it. I may be tame regarding my objections to religion and spirituality, but creationist theory is garbage. It's not even comparable to asking whether or not god exists. Pitting evolution against creationism is the equivalent of pitting the law of gravity against the idea that everything in the world is being pushed to the ground by an army of invisible locusts (i.e. it's a joke). I wouldn't mind explaining evolutionary theory to someone who wants to know more, whether they be simple-minded or advanced. I would not explain it to a creationist though. Why? Because I won't talk to them, there are certain kinds of stupid I find too irritating to tolerate.


http://www.americanscientist.org/ is a science journal ...

So you're talking about American Scientist, the journal. The question remains, what does AmSci have to do with anything?


I get it. You want a philosophical debate for which the source is nothingness; but, I like to sit on the fence and watch both sides destroy the imaginary philosophical castles. Lets part ways.

That's one way to pussyfoot around a topic. There's no such thing as "the fence", it's an illusion of neutrality that people put up to avoid having arguments directed at them. You have a preference that you're not disclosing. It wouldn't bother me if you keep it to yourself, but if you want something off your chest, feel free to unload.


P.S: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I matured, my talks matured, my thoughts matured, my reasoning matured. Still the world is a mystery to me. Therefore, I can only hope there is another plane of thinking, to which I transcend, so as to make sense of another layer of abstraction. So said the Master Zen Guru, AbyBeats. (And yea, I know what you are going to write next megabyteme)

It's not possible to grasp every concept, there were always be mystery, even if they're understood by others. Seeking another plane? You've probably already been made aware of its existence, but just haven't acknowledged it yet. Other than that, you basically described aging, it's a natural occurrence, nothing really mysterious about it.

[A]

I don't know if you are sleep deprived, or if its failure on my part to make the points clear, but surely you are not comprehending what I have written from my 3rd post on. Even the pun on girl reading American Scientist went un-noticed :cry:

Also:

That's one way to pussyfoot around a topic. There's no such thing as "the fence", it's an illusion of neutrality that people put up to avoid having arguments directed at them. You have a preference that you're not disclosing. It wouldn't bother me if you keep it to yourself, but if you want something off your chest, feel free to unload.
Yea right, I believe ya. My opinion in this matter is clearly and concisely presented in the very first post I made. But you say "neutrality" is an illusion. I say "taking sides" is another illusion.

[mjmacky]

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

You say that like it applies to all scientists, that's disingenuous. Scientific method or experimental design is based around a hypothesis. Whether it could be lightly supported, heavily supported, or just creative thought, its validity is tested against observations. In fact, it takes a bit of faith to address a question. Even if the notion has no support, it is typically founded on logical and analogous reasoning. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher out there beating the same dead horse their entire career.

Having a well tested theory become outright discredited is rare. Many of the major falsehoods were based on coincidental observations, or metaphysical fantasy and even the bible. Some of them were sound attempts to describe what happens in our world (e.g. phlogiston). Aside from those highly famed but ultimately insignificant representations of scientific theory, when something doesn't match, there's a new factor that is identified and the theory is updated. That's in fact how we progress at all. So I'm saying that scientists who "steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic" is a poor reflection of the reality. If that was the case, science would be almost as bad as creationism.

[mjmacky]

I don't know if you are sleep deprived, or if its failure on my part to make the points clear, but surely you are not comprehending what I have written from my 3rd post on. Even the pun on girl reading American Scientist went un-noticed :cry:

I'm sticking to the less fun, more serious version of myself for this thread, sorry if I brush off the lighter comments.

Edit: If you feel your stance has been misinterpreted, nothing is stopping you from clarifying.


Yea right, I believe ya. My opinion in this matter is clearly and concisely presented in the very first post I made. But you say "neutrality" is an illusion. I say "taking sides" is another illusion.

Taking a side is pretty clear, whether or not it's being faked. Genuine apathy is another matter though. I still call bullshit on fencesitting. Not like there's a sharp divide, but that when provided a context there's always a bias.

[A]

Edit: If you feel your stance has been misinterpreted, nothing is stopping you from clarifying.
Nah, too much work. Re-reading when you are at peace or something will do, I guess.


Taking a side is pretty clear, whether or not it's being faked. Genuine apathy is another matter though. I still call bullshit on fencesitting. Not like there's a sharp divide, but that when provided a context there's always a bias.
Provided such a context, where your reasoning mind finds some logic for being biased. When there is none or when uncertainty plays a major factor, I feel comfortable sitting in the middle.

[megabyteme]

P.S: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I matured, my talks matured, my thoughts matured, my reasoning matured. Still the world is a mystery to me. Therefore, I can only hope there is another plane of thinking, to which I transcend, so as to make sense of another layer of abstraction. So said the Master Zen Guru, AbyBeats. (And yea, I know what you are going to write next megabyteme)

Interesting how that seems to fit with the idea I threw out regarding additional dimensions. And I am talking about well-known physicists. I'll see if I can find descriptions of those other (apparently mathematically proven) dimensions. They are interesting to try to imagine, if nothing else.

[devilsadvocate]

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

Example?

[mjmacky]

Taking a side is pretty clear, whether or not it's being faked. Genuine apathy is another matter though. I still call bullshit on fencesitting. Not like there's a sharp divide, but that when provided a context there's always a bias.
Provided such a context, where your reasoning mind finds some logic for being biased. When there is none or when uncertainty plays a major factor, I feel comfortable sitting in the middle.

There's always a context, that's the point. It can't really be apathy either, for you've already posted.

[mjmacky]

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

Example?

Evangelical scientists? Actually there's another public figure biologist, can't recall his name though.

[A]

Provided such a context, where your reasoning mind finds some logic for being biased. When there is none or when uncertainty plays a major factor, I feel comfortable sitting in the middle.

There's always a context, that's the point. It can't really be apathy either, for you've already posted.
No. Don't group all contexts to fall into "left side" and "right side". Maybe that's because of your inability to "not take sides". Just because you can't think so, don't think others can't.

In this context, I can take sides (opinion about my reasoning better than what you have come to reason with about "taking sides"), because my reasoning tells me, doing so makes more sense. Just because I "took side" here doesn't mean I am gonna "take side" on every other context.

[bigboab]

In this context, I can take sides (opinion about my reasoning better than what you have come to reason with about "taking sides"), because my reasoning tells me, doing so makes more sense. Just because I "took side" here doesn't mean I am gonna "take side" on every other context.

Government speak? You should be working for the local government. You would be worth a fortune to them.:)

Me personally? I just take sides according to the evidence available.

[A]

In this context, I can take sides (opinion about my reasoning better than what you have come to reason with about "taking sides"), because my reasoning tells me, doing so makes more sense. Just because I "took side" here doesn't mean I am gonna "take side" on every other context.

Government speak? You should be working for the local government. You would be worth a fortune to them.:)

Me personally? I just take sides according to the evidence available.
Yea right. As we all know, there are lots of concrete evidence to support either case in this scenario. Which side are you on again? :)

[bigboab]

Government speak? You should be working for the local government. You would be worth a fortune to them.:)

Me personally? I just take sides according to the evidence available.
Yea right. As we all know, there are lots of concrete evidence to support either case in this scenario. Which side are you on again? :)

I don't see any concrete evidence to support the existence of a God. Before anyone goes on about the Bible remember that all 'evidence' against religion was burnt, including humans who disagreed.

[A]

Yea right. As we all know, there are lots of concrete evidence to support either case in this scenario. Which side are you on again? :)

I don't see any concrete evidence to support the existence of a God. Before anyone goes on about the Bible remember that all 'evidence' against religion was burnt, including humans who disagreed.
Atheist then. A very wise decision indeed.

[megabyteme]

I don't see any concrete evidence to support the existence of a God. Before anyone goes on about the Bible remember that all 'evidence' against religion was burnt, including humans who disagreed.
Atheist then. A very wise decision indeed.

...but only sinners (who were doomed to an eternity of Hellfire, anyway) were burned. Think of it as, "starting their futures early". Who doesn't appreciate a bit of help in getting started. :idunno: As for the other stuff... do we really need mis-guided individuals spreading incorrect info (and even damnable lies)? I think not. Just look at the internets and all the crap that gets posted.

So, really, a few hell-bent miscreants were expelled early, and their misinformation was disposed of properly. And that was hundreds of years ago. Move on, please. Geesh.

[A]

People who have strong opinions based on uncertain/unverified facts is like ...

[mjmacky]

People who have strong opinions based on uncertain/unverified facts is like ...

I don't know if posting bullshit or managing to post the virtual equivalent of nothing is worse. But it feels like the thread is dying. Don't know if it was because of your theological bias or you just want to troll this thread, but thanks anyways. If you plan to post something interesting and/or meaningful, I'll pay it some mind; otherwise I think the misinformation has been addressed (not like it matters).

[mjmacky]

Atheist then. A very wise decision indeed.

...but only sinners (who were doomed to an eternity of Hellfire, anyway) were burned. Think of it as, "starting their futures early". Who doesn't appreciate a bit of help in getting started. :idunno: As for the other stuff... do we really need mis-guided individuals spreading incorrect info (and even damnable lies)? I think not. Just look at the internets and all the crap that gets posted.

So, really, a few hell-bent miscreants were expelled early, and their misinformation was disposed of properly. And that was hundreds of years ago. Move on, please. Geesh.

I don't see what would have stopped all those victims from getting saved at a later time in life. It sounds like those religious nuts ran things like american health insurance policies. Convert to christianity now... sorry, we do not cover pre-existing conditions.

Also: Sorry, you didn't join during our enrollment period.

[A]

People who have strong opinions based on uncertain/unverified facts is like ...

I don't know if posting bullshit or managing to post the virtual equivalent of nothing is worse. But it feels like the thread is dying. Don't know if it was because of your theological bias or you just want to troll this thread, but thanks anyways. If you plan to post something interesting and/or meaningful, I'll pay it some mind; otherwise I think the misinformation has been addressed (not like it matters).
Lets all agree with mjmacky, and philosophically establish the non-existence of God without any proof of it because;

At best, I feel it only deserves a philosophical debate
So says the scientist mjmacky :lol:

[megabyteme]

I don't see what would have stopped all those victims from getting saved at a later time in life. It sounds like those religious nuts ran things like american health insurance policies. Convert to christianity now... sorry, we do not cover pre-existing conditions.

Also: Sorry, you didn't join during our enrollment period.

Step 1: Collect A LOT of souls/insurance premiums.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: BIG, BIG PROFIT!!!

[A]

People who have strong opinions based on uncertain/unverified facts is like ...

I don't know if posting bullshit or managing to post the virtual equivalent of nothing is worse.

I am sorry if my posts seems like bullshit; but I was truly trying to show how stupid your effort was and the basis of structuring the whole argument.


But it feels like the thread is dying. Don't know if it was because of your theological bias or you just want to troll this thread,
1. If you had properly read and followed my comments, you would have known, that I am neither a theologists or an atheist; which was pretty apparent from the very first post I made. Dont get frustrated mjmacky, I am sure there are people who would follow you just on the basis of philosophy.

2. I would love to quote Einstein here; "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." People have been beating this dead horse since the inception of humanity. Try something different, rather than going the same path and expecting different results.


but thanks anyways. If you plan to post something interesting and/or meaningful, I'll pay it some mind; otherwise I think the misinformation has been addressed (not like it matters).
I once heard the same similar thing from a creationists in another forum I used to hang out, and he too thought of soo highly of himself. Don't you find it really intriguing?

[megabyteme]

1. If you had properly read and followed my comments, you would have known, that I am neither a theologists or an atheist; which was pretty apparent from the very first post I made. Dont get frustrated mjmacky, I am sure there are people who would follow you just on the basis of philosophy.

2. I would love to quote Einstein here; "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." People have been beating this dead horse since the inception of humanity. Try something different, rather than going the same path and expecting different results.



Aby, had you been reading, and following along, you would have seen that your whole stance has already been discussed. Do we really need an emo standing on the side mocking our discussion? I think not.

NO conversation benefits from your "shoot everything down" stance. It's a conversation killer.

Bob: I'm going to see [movie x] tonight. I've heard it's great. Want to come, Sally?

Sally: [Movie x] sounds interesting. Let me see if Aby wants to join us...

Aby: Movies are pointless. They are expensive, the chairs are uncomfortable, the stories always miss the point of the original book. And I inevitably swit where someone has spilled popcorn, and their drink on the floor.

Sally: :mellow:

Bob: :mellow:

*Sally and Bob go to the movie, and have a good time.

Aby: :emo:



As for the idea that topics have been beaten to death, I disagree. While many of us have had these discussions here, and IRL, the argument could be taken to nearly any topic- and those who have spent more than a decade studying after high school would have little reason to discuss what they have learned. With a forum (a place to discuss topics of interest), it is valuable to open these things up, and see where they go.

That said, there also seems to be a growing anti-religion movement online. It appears to me popular to bash religion/God while online (not necessarily being done by the OP here, BTW).

I am personally moving in the direction of finding a place for religion, and possibly even Jesus, in my life. As someone who has now had the opportunity to attend two fantastic private universities, I have experienced what it means to be surrounded by people who live their lives in accordance to (many) of the teachings of JC. I have also studied a fair amount of philosophy (one class shy of a minor), I found contradictions, and failings in every one -with the exception of JC. You subtract the Son of God aspects out, and His teachings are quite exceptional.

So, for me, I see value in revisiting these "old" discussions as a way to reassess my life, and whether or not I am willing to "drink the kool-aid". The idea of a life story, and the growing thoughts that mine is coming together (with tragedies, and successes) almost like a pre-written novel, have made me consider that there is not only more than I can see, but that there may be something influencing my life that is beyond my understanding.

[A]

Bob: I'm going to see [movie x] tonight. I've heard it's great. Want to come, Sally?

Sally: [Movie x] sounds interesting. Let me see if Aby wants to join us...

Aby: Whats the movie about?

BoB: C'mon the regular drama and sex, and the same ole story, but I hear its better than Avatar. Lots of GFX and Action.

Aby: Such Movies are pointless, nothing new to the table. I prefer movies which intrigues me; not the same plot with different actors. Whats the point in wasting money?

Sally: :mellow:

Bob: :mellow:

*Sally and Bob go to the movie, and have a good time while sleeping.

Aby: Off to download some really good movies and documentaries.


NO conversation benefits from your "shoot everything down" stance. It's a conversation killer.
Expressing opinions, expressing opinions :rolleyes:

[A]

People who have strong opinions based on uncertain/unverified facts is like ...

I don't know if posting bullshit or managing to post the virtual equivalent of nothing is worse. But it feels like the thread is dying.
Yea right. This thread was dead after the initial steam; like all such threads, which die out soon after a short burst (except in respective extreme forums of course) in activity. One person's posts never diminishes other people's interest in debating. When the thread hits a wall of "no interest" or "lack of proper refuting", its then a thread dies out. But, I understand. Your frustration is apparent. I'll stop right here; lets see where this threads goes.

[megabyteme]

Aby, in 4 pages, you've added nothing to the thread, and managed to distract from every point that was made. I typically like tolerate you, but you are being an irritating ass. Go spam elsewhere, this section is supposed to be for serious discussion. It is clear you have no interest in the thread, and only wish to distract those who are in it.

Read the section rules, and then go back to BT.

[A]

Sorry. Open thread. Anyone can put their opinions in. If the moderator feels like I am spamming, they will do their duty of cleaning up un-wanted posts. Don't play a mini-mod. To me, you two are the only ones hanging on by a thread along the lines of philosophical BS; and instead of properly refuting my points and "quieting" me down with reason, you are the ones who are going on the offensive. You should read the section rules and stop posting comments like the above in the drawing room, before advocating anything at all. This is not the lounge you know where you belong; for mindless spam.

[megabyteme]

"On the fence". Wow, valuable opinion/position.

[bigboab]

People are still being killed because of religion. There are other religions in the world who still carry out these 'early dispatches'). I will move on when those cease.

[megabyteme]

I was hoping people would see the humorous tone to that post. Back a few pages, I made a serious comment regarding "The Church" being manipulative, and power-hungry. There's no real reason why one needs to attend church, or follow along with its politics in order to believe in God any more than one needs a library card to receive an education. However, many benefit from the social aspects offered by being a member of such a group.

I am not looking for that as much as I am trying to come to terms with my own life. It is undeniable that there is a storyline to it. I am not so certain stories come together as I have experienced based entirely on random, unrelated events. There are too many elements that have appeared (good and bad) that when examined, look more like plot devices than random occurrences, or entropy. I am trying to honestly evaluate what I have experienced, and determine whether, or not, there may be more than I can fully understand.

[mjmacky]

and instead of properly refuting my points and "quieting" me down with reason

Make a point that would warrant analysis and doesn't already defeat itself nor prequels earlier discussion. If I have a differing opinion, I will refute it. You haven't really said anything other than "I have no interest in this" and "refute my point", the latter of which was the only thing worth responding to.

[mjmacky]

One person's posts never diminishes other people's interest in debating

Sure it can. However I suspected it would be Oleg's, turns out it was yours.

[mjmacky]

People are still being killed because of religion. There are other religions in the world who still carry out these 'early dispatches'). I will move on when those cease.

The institutional and personal belief systems both play a role in these kinds of tragedies. It's what I think pushes the effects in the net negative area (though difficult if not impossible to weigh them in any quantifiable form). It's what pushes me in the direction of antitheism, and I think my apathy and laziness are some of many factors of why I don't do anything about it (aside from running my mouth at my convenience, e.g. on a forum).

[mjmacky]

There are too many elements that have appeared (good and bad) that when examined, look more like plot devices than random occurrences, or entropy. I am trying to honestly evaluate what I have experienced, and determine whether, or not, there may be more than I can fully understand.

Sounds like you're in a search for commonalities, without knowing whether they even exist. Don't forget to take a step back and share your story with those you know, sometimes it just takes an alternate perspective to start working towards some clarity. You'll eventually collect those anyway and your hindsight will prove to have a better focus.

I used to think the universe (in its entirety) worked against me when I was young and believed in supernatural forces. When I look back on it now, it was impossible for me to have determined why everything seemed that way. In the end though, it seems that all coincidences share some link, almost like they're complementary.

[clocker]

There are too many elements that have appeared (good and bad) that when examined, look more like plot devices than random occurrences, or entropy. I am trying to honestly evaluate what I have experienced, and determine whether, or not, there may be more than I can fully understand.

Sounds like you're in a search for commonalities, without knowing whether they even exist. Don't forget to take a step back and share your story with those you know, sometimes it just takes an alternate perspective to start working towards some clarity. You'll eventually collect those anyway and your hindsight will prove to have a better focus.

I used to think the universe (in its entirety) worked against me when I was young and believed in supernatural forces. When I look back on it now, it was impossible for me to have determined why everything seemed that way. In the end though, it seems that all coincidences share some link, almost like they're complementary.
Two cliches seem appropriate to this discussion:
-Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
-Shit happens

Both the above are basically populist expressions of Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest explanation that covers circumstances is usually correct.
Examine your past through this perspective and see if supernatural explanations are still required.

[mjmacky]

the simplest explanation that covers circumstances is usually correct.
Examine your past through this perspective and see if supernatural explanations are still required.

Who's a what's a now? I feel a disconnect between what I said and what it appears you interpreted. The point I was making was this, supernatural explanations do not hold weight in hindsight even though they felt like the obvious reason at the time. I was young, so it was a combination of not understanding the environment around me in addition to information being withheld from me as a child. When I revisit those memories, it's a lot more clear and the supernatural argument holds no merit, and even though the factors were mostly coincidental, they all were made more likely by consequence of poverty, race, egotistical people, the law, etc. I know I describe it very vaguely, but I don't like to reveal too much about my personal history.

I think much of my experience and maturation reflects society's movement towards atheism. As we advance our knowledge scientifically and hone our philosophical perspectives, the incentives to believe in the supernatural fade over time. Even without that historical perspective of trending, if you look at 1000 bright minds vs 1000 dull minds at any point in time, the group that will have the higher percentage of atheistic adoption will be the brighter minds. So the case I make is this, if deities were these superior beings, why would those who reside closer to their intellect have a tendency to disavow the notion of their existence? I doubt that a significant cause of that can be attributed to narcissism.

Throughout history, man has understood that the most effective way to convince others to adopt your opinions/beliefs is NOT to enlighten them using reasoning, but to snuff dissenting theories into silence. This is part of why so many books were burned and people were killed in the past. If your argument gains followers by suppression of knowledge, it's hardly a reasonable argument. It's becoming more difficult to hide information these days, and I believe that is to humanity's benefit. We have entered the age of information, and the primary hindrances are not book burning, but internet censorship by firewalls and shutdowns.

@clocker I seemed to have veered from my the intent of my original reply, but I was inspired to bash out this narrative. So don't take it all as a direct response to you.

[clocker]

The disconnect is because I was primarily responding to megabyteme.

[mjmacky]

The disconnect is because I was primarily responding to megabyteme.

Aha, makes sense

[megabyteme]

Hey, why is a response to me always a "disconnect"? :angry:



Just kidding, but I don't have time, currently, to discuss your points. Thanks guys!

*EDIT*

Actually didn't want to be productive, anyway...

I suppose it could be said that I am simply willing to explore the dialectic at this point in my life. I grew up without religion, and was very much an admitted atheist before it became cool to be so online. Actually, this was before online existed.

Do I need to find mystical explanations? No. Have the vast number of people I respect (many who have earned their Master's, or PhD's) had inclinations towards, or strong beliefs in God? Yes. Do these individuals lead healthy, happy lives? TBH, I've seen enough dysfunction to last me several lives, so my sample would be VASTLY skewed here- I do not have interest in the downtrodden, or unhappy, anymore.

I do not need to pray for anything except the health and happiness of my family and friends. Any god coming to the party now has a relatively easy job in "helping" us maintain that.

As for explaining events of my life... I am all for simple. Simple is great. However, how can I look for something that is greater than myself, perhaps outside my ability to comprehend, if I remain focused on "simple"?

All I am doing is opening up the realm of possibility for something decidedly good.

[mjmacky]

Hey, why is a response to me always a "disconnect"? :angry:

Obvious because your comments are always irrelevant


Just kidding

Me too


and was very much an admitted atheist before it became cool to be so online

Is this official now? I've been waiting to be considered cool.

Actually, since we can morph ourselves at will and hide behind any personality we wish, online reputation doesn't carry too much weight for me. I hardly think anything of what people think of me in physical life, let alone online. Anyways, it's still received as a dick move to make atheistic comments in our physical lives, at least where I live. For instance, if someone asks if you will pray for them or something, the response "Why? God doesn't exist," is met with defensive hostility. English atheists don't have much to say as a replacement for "god bless you" when someone sneezes or such, so I have to resort to another language (if I say anything at all) since "excuse you" and "shut the fuck up" don't seem appropriate (well most of the time).

So what I'm getting at is that many atheists are surrounded by family, friends, coworkers, bosses, etc. that will be offended by your views, and the internet seems to be the safest place to open up your thoughts without alienating yourself. I am fortunate to not have to worry about that anymore in reality, as I've already alienated almost all of the serious theists I knew. I seem to be in the process of alienating some more, so I am apparently lacking some kind of outlet.

[clocker]

As for explaining events of my life... I am all for simple. Simple is great. However, how can I look for something that is greater than myself, perhaps outside my ability to comprehend, if I remain focused on "simple"?

Why do you seek "something that is greater than myself"?
If you accept the Christian tenet that man was created in God's image, then aren't you the greatest thing ever?
If you doubt your ability to comprehend, isn't "simple" the only approach left?

[megabyteme]

Me too


and was very much an admitted atheist before it became cool to be so online

Is this official now? I've been waiting to be considered cool.

Actually, since we can morph ourselves at will and hide behind any personality we wish, online reputation doesn't carry too much weight for me. I hardly think anything [snip*], so I am apparently lacking some kind of outlet.

I do believe there are quite a few forums where it is quite popular to be atheist, as either an act of rebellion, or as an outlet.

*Couldn't resist such a convenient, and fun edit point. :D


I will try to address both your, and clocker's points by saying that I do not believe anyone should be alienated by others (although it TRULY does happen) for moving from one position to another. My core inklings tend to be with the two of you. I am not much of a fairy tale/mystics believer, nor simpleton. However, I can no longer dismiss the beliefs of those who believe in God/gods as being feeble minded, weak, or suckered.

It quite simply may be, as Idol mentioned, that God is an idea. If I come to that conclusion, then I will be happy to introduce my children to that one- one that may give them comfort and courage, than one that makes them feel alone, and may serve to isolate them from others.

[A]

So em ... What can we take from this thread? :shifty: ( Did you guys miss me? :naughty: )

[mjmacky]

So em ... What can we take from this thread? :shifty: ( Did you guys miss me? :naughty: )

1. God isn't real
2. Praying is silly
3. Atheism isn't a dogma
4. If you try, you could become a member of tTC.

Edit:
Also the summer is over, you must take up your issues with the official fall 2011 atheist thread. However, due to short supply, you'll have to supply your own horse.

[megabyteme]

So em ... What can we take from this thread? :shifty: ( Did you guys miss me? :naughty: )

I took your absence as a true sign of divine intervention, as my prayers had been answered.

Now that you have returned, I feel the sacrifice of my neighbor's cat was in vain still worth the chance.

[A]

:fst:

[mjmacky]

per one of the discussion points... the 4th dimension:

87923 (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2388#comic)

[mjmacky]

104309

[Snee]

idfk. We've had the occasional nubbin teen come along and tell the entire drawering room why there is no God, via the gift of half-arsed reasoning, and strawmen. It's prolly one of them.

[mjmacky]

idfk. We've had the occasional nubbin teen come along and tell the entire drawering room why there is no God, via the gift of half-arsed reasoning, and strawmen. It's prolly one of them.

Are said people currently unsexed virgins?

[manker]

I might read that one day, instead of skimming.

How come Kev didn't come back and tell Mary how a giant snail the size of his fist turned his life upside down.
I simply must know.

[mjmacky]

I might read that one day, instead of skimming.

How come Kev didn't come back and tell Mary how a giant snail the size of his fist turned his life upside down.
I simply must know.

He did, but it must have been in a PM.

[manker]

I might read that one day, instead of skimming.

How come Kev didn't come back and tell Mary how a giant snail the size of his fist turned his life upside down.
I simply must know.

He did, but it must have been in a PM.
Indeed.

Share the wealth, PM boi. Kev won't mind, me and him are tight.





Edit: I mean that we're both parsimonious. He probably can't stand me.

[mjmacky]

Share the wealth, PM boi. Kev won't mind, me and him are tight.

Edit: I mean that we're both parsimonious. He probably can't stand me.

You're not seeing the obstacle that I face, I would have to go dig up the information in PMland, which I'm only slightly sure still exists. I could parse the details that I can recall now, but that would only lead to a delving inquiry, as the trend would indicate. In spite of all the warnings that have reverberated back to my person, I will leave it at this: Kev has a car, Kev has old buddies, his old buddies have cars, sometimes Kev hangs out with old buddies, sometimes Kev's and his old buddies' cars hang out, some of these cars are designed to operate with forced induction. This is all I recall, I'm not taking any more questions.

[manker]

Share the wealth, PM boi. Kev won't mind, me and him are tight.

Edit: I mean that we're both parsimonious. He probably can't stand me.

You're not seeing the obstacle that I face, I would have to go dig up the information in PMland, which I'm only slightly sure still exists. I could parse the details that I can recall now, but that would only lead to a delving inquiry, as the trend would indicate. In spite of all the warnings that have reverberated back to my person, I will leave it at this: Kev has a car, Kev has old buddies, his old buddies have cars, sometimes Kev hangs out with old buddies, sometimes Kev's and his old buddies' cars hang out, some of these cars are designed to operate with forced induction. This is all I recall, I'm not taking any more questions.
I thought you weren't going to smoke crack on school-nights any more.

[mjmacky]

I thought you weren't going to smoke crack on school-nights any more.

A bit of oversight on my part, I don't have school-nights.

[Artemis]

I thought you weren't going to smoke crack on school-nights any more.

A bit of oversight on my part, I don't have school-nights.

From the symptoms you exhibit, I suspect you've moved on from the crack as well.....

[mjmacky]

My body is a temple. A temple in which it is safe to stash all of the drugs you need to hide.

[Snee]

idfk. We've had the occasional nubbin teen come along and tell the entire drawering room why there is no God, via the gift of half-arsed reasoning, and strawmen. It's prolly one of them.

Are said people currently unsexed virgins?
They might be married neckbeards now, for all I know.

How do you fancy the one in the video? Looks like the real deal to me.

[mjmacky]

How do you fancy the one in the video? Looks like the real deal to me.

I stated from the gecko that this Cristina Rad chick could easily lay me. Also, you've one-cheeked my reasoning, hidden my brain, and halved my age. I can only handle like 637 more insults before I start to get irritated.

[Snee]

Are we being a wee bit paranoid, at all?

[mjmacky]

'Twas me that gave the video the FST feature on Youtube by starting this thread. This is the only thread in which it exists on FST. My surprised reaction is that enough people actually followed the video from this thread to get it a high enough view count to point to FST. Ergo, I'm your godless lop-assed scarecrow teen. Did that make anyone else really horny?

[Artemis]

. Ergo, I'm your godless lop-assed scarecrow teen. Did that make anyone else really horny?

No, so you will have to play with yourself as usual. :blink:

[Snee]

'Twas me that gave the video the FST feature on Youtube by starting this thread. This is the only thread in which it exists on FST. My surprised reaction is that enough people actually followed the video from this thread to get it a high enough view count to point to FST. Ergo, I'm your godless lop-assed scarecrow teen.

Fuck's sake, that's feminist reasoning that is.

[mjmacky]

I'm into feminists. I like getting real deep into them.

[Snee]

I meant this kind (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.se/).

Sexy closeup included. (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.se/2008/07/i-write-letters.html)

[mjmacky]

Well what else would you expect when you order the fat princess?

[Snee]

:idunno:

The point is that she, and the rest of the halfwits that support her, like to argue that intent (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.se/2011/12/harmful-communication-part-one-intent.html) doesn't matter. If they get offended it's bad. To some extent that can be true, but they go overboard (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.se/2010/08/rape-is-hilarious-part-53-in-ongoing.html) like you wouldn't believe. And they've got this really mental set of rules called feminism 101 (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.se/2010/01/feminism-101.html) to which they'll refer anyone who might disagree, together with a draconian censorship policy.

I'm not really implying that you're a massive fuckwit, tho.

I'm explaining cos I've decided that explaining jokes is cool now.

[mjmacky]

:idunno:

The point is that she, and the rest of the halfwits that support her, like to argue that intent (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.se/2011/12/harmful-communication-part-one-intent.html) doesn't matter. If they get offended it's bad. To some extent that can be true, but they go overboard (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.se/2010/08/rape-is-hilarious-part-53-in-ongoing.html) like you wouldn't believe. And they've got this really mental set of rules called feminism 101 (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.se/2010/01/feminism-101.html) to which they'll refer anyone who might disagree, together with a draconian censorship policy.

I'm not really implying that you're a massive fuckwit, tho.

I'm explaining cos I've decided that explaining jokes is cool now.

It's always been a policy of mine to do so, glad to see my spores taking effect.

I closed the tab once I saw the fat chick so I was unaware of their specific manifesto. The free speech advocate in me has pimped out the feminist in me. The pacifist in me is trying to calm the tension between them, but none of them pay him much credence after he murdered the punctilist in me. Maybe later tonight I'll drink a bunch of alcohol to put them down for awhile.

[celina915]

mjmacky,
god is all. love is all.

[mjmacky]

mjmacky,
god is all. love is all.

Well that's it then, I guess the point being made is that I should subscribe to some silly belief because this tool over here is building up his post count to gain access to the bt invite subsections. If god is all, then that would include god is an imaginary, idiotic, child-touching, slut-beating, three-legged, ping pong playing prick. Also, so is love.

[bkg12]

to some extent I agree to your view that only weaker ones need God or need to believe that there is a God. The concept of religion and God has been misused by us for our own selfish motives for a long time. If you see now, all the religions are just money making businesses (Big Ones). A knife can be used to cut vegetables or to operate a person but can also be used to give pain or murder anyone and this holds true for everything that exists. Similarly, the concept of God has been exploited a lot but that does not mean that God would not exist.
Everything cannot be God because simply like a father and mother create a child, they are not the child. God is our creator but how it happened is still a mystery to mankind. Of course diff ppl have their own conclusions. People derive different meanings from what is written in scriptures or even manipulate the same.
I guess all I would like to say is whether or not you believe in God.......just use the concept to encourage someone, make them stronger cos if someone believes in God, their belief in God is the only concept which can be used to help people out of their misery. just be creative :)

[bigboab]

My personal opinion is that Abraham was indeed a very wise man. The Egyptians would not allow the Hebrew slaves to worship any of their Gods, almost everything known to man was an Egyptian God. The only option was an invisible God and Abraham had the idea and contrived a way to convince the slaves of the existence of one.

Am I talking a load of crap? At least it keeps the thread alive.:lol:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19007127

[bkg12]

seems true ...well......even for the so called invisible God..ppl have their own views......just wonderful......hahaha

[mjmacky]

seems true ...well......even for the so called invisible God..ppl have their own views......just wonderful......hahaha

A view, a vision, a distorted image produced in your mind. The result of stories told to you in your youth. That is god.

[megabyteme]

This is summer 2012. Shirley, there have been great advancements in atheism over the past year...

[bkg12]

seems true ...well......even for the so called invisible God..ppl have their own views......just wonderful......hahaha

A view, a vision, a distorted image produced in your mind. The result of stories told to you in your youth. That is god.

may be you are right. Discussion about God is something which can never come to a conclusion.
What matters is if this vision can be used to do some good to the mankind or not.......i believe that is more important

[mjmacky]

Let's put it this way, an atheist can be a theologian. I had even considered it once, as I feel it falls in the domain of psychoanalysis.

[megabyteme]

Let's put it this way, an atheist can be a theologian. I had even considered it once, as I feel it falls in the domain of psychoanalysis.

Psycho-analist if you're Catholic. :P

[svirk]

What is the cause of all causes? What is the ultimate cause? Has the universe always existed and all of "creation" is the work blind chance and chaos or is there an intelligent power behind it. The atheist is just arrogant and blind enough to declare, without any knowledge or evidence, that there absolutely can be no intelligent Ultimate cause. According to the limited powers of intellect the atheist may possess, he feels comfortable taking a particularly reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe off the table. Whether or not the atheist accepts or rejects any notions of God he is fool to imagine the only possibilities are that a non-sentinent universe has always existed or that it came into being only by blind chance.

[piercerseth]

The atheist is just arrogant and blind enough to declare, without any knowledge or evidence. Ok, I'll bite. You've got the particulars backwards. I dunno about you, but I only refute assertions when empircal evidence has been provided--however tenuous it might be. I can't falsify your claim, but I'm also comfortable living my life with Russell and his teapot.

Ad hominems & ignorantiams are kids' fallacies, I know you can do better.

[megabyteme]

the atheist [...] taking a particularly reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe off the table.

:blink:

[mjmacky]

According to the limited powers of intellect the atheist may possess, he feels comfortable taking a particularly reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe off the table. Whether or not the atheist accepts or rejects any notions of God he is fool to imagine the only possibilities are that a non-sentinent universe has always existed or that it came into being only by blind chance.

Blind chance is a reoccurring phenomenon and is grounded in our reality. Basically, we have a general understanding of statistics, probability, and all that abstract stuff. At the least, we are capable of understanding it.

What is being rejected is the library of both wildly varied and selectively incestuous works of fiction that have served as placeholders until the world around us could be more aptly described. This practice persists in science today, and it is understanding that algebraic mechanism that provides sufficient perspective to not accept old mythologies as truths that govern our world.

That means that the offer on the table, as you put it, is archaic and silly if not irksome (due to the consequences of fervor). Your persistence in its validity is akin to me convincing you of the existence of gremlins. That's a bad analogy, I admit, since gremlins are totally real. Why else would one copy of MS Word crash with the same document and another can handle it just fine? Gremlins, that's why.

[megabyteme]

since gremlins are totally real.

:fear:

[piercerseth]

existence of gremlinsThey wouldn't be a problem if you didn't insist on feeding them after midnight. Heathen.

[svirk]

Blind chance is a reoccurring phenomenon and is grounded in our reality...
What is being rejected is the library of both wildly varied and selectively incestuous works of fiction that have served as placeholders until the world around us could be more aptly described....

Your rejection of "works of fiction" has nothing to do with anything I said. I state only that the universe is the result of blind chance and has always existed or that there is a Creator that exists outside of the universe. I state that the atheist has no particular reason to accept or reject either of these propositions. Everything around you has a cause for its existence. The chain of causes must have a beginning. Why does the atheist insist that the cause of all causes must be non-sentinent?

It is because the atheist clings to his belief in the same many religionists cling to theirs. The atheist discards all that is true in order to feel superior and mock those who have accepted ludicrous ideas along with the truth. It is a disease of arrogance that leads them astray and it is a disease that is spreading fast in this age.

[megabyteme]

So many horrible things have been done in the name of God, under the orders of The Church, following the book which is based on ideas conceived and written by man in order to control the lives of others.

Atheists, cynical as they may be, have never done such things...

[mjmacky]

Blind chance is a reoccurring phenomenon and is grounded in our reality...
What is being rejected is the library of both wildly varied and selectively incestuous works of fiction that have served as placeholders until the world around us could be more aptly described....

Your rejection of "works of fiction" has nothing to do with anything I said. I state only that the universe is the result of blind chance and has always existed or that there is a Creator that exists outside of the universe. I state that the atheist has no particular reason to accept or reject either of these propositions. Everything around you has a cause for its existence. The chain of causes must have a beginning. Why does the atheist insist that the cause of all causes must be non-sentinent?

It is because the atheist clings to his belief in the same many religionists cling to theirs. The atheist discards all that is true in order to feel superior and mock those who have accepted ludicrous ideas along with the truth. It is a disease of arrogance that leads them astray and it is a disease that is spreading fast in this age.

You're forgetting the part that we can observe the occurrence of minutely probable events but there is no such verification for the fantasy of a metaphysical creator.

An atheist can learn and understand phenomena without having to rely on faith. It's a conclusion based on observations rather than belief.

Someone of faith can portray the same phenomena with a narrative derived from pure fantasy, and it doesn't need to be justified since there is neither truth nor a need for truth in such a mechanism.

These are completely different approaches and not simply a divided path from the same root.

For instance, perception and experience allow me to conclude that the simplest method to travel between walled rooms is via open doorways. You, on the other hand, can "believe" that the simplest method is trying to walk straight through the wall based on some folklore that has been passed down your ancestral tree. These are not two sides of the same coin, and I will not bother with what goes on between you and your helmet. If you try to convince me or a mass of people to follow suit, I will judge you accordingly.

[mjmacky]

So many horrible things have been done in the name of God, under the orders of The Church, following the book which is based on ideas conceived and written by man in order to control the lives of others.

Atheists, cynical as they may be, have never done such things...

This is the basis of antitheism. Religion as a tool for control has had so many deleterious effects on both personal and societal scales.

[theblake]

Atheists cynical as they may be, have never done such things...

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot?

[megabyteme]

Atheists cynical as they may be, have never done such things...

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot?

Good point, but it could be argued they simply elevated themselves to god status. Cutting out the middle-man doesn't necessarily make it "atheism".

[mjmacky]

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot?

Good point, but it could be argued they simply elevated themselves to god status. Cutting out the middle-man doesn't necessarily make it "atheism".

That poster may have just been ironically mimicking the religious fanatics being addressed in the hot chick's video. At least, I think this was the thread in which I posted it.

[svirk]

So many horrible things have been done in the name of God, under the orders of The Church, following the book which is based on ideas conceived and written by man in order to control the lives of others.

Atheists, cynical as they may be, have never done such things...

People will do horrible things in the name of anything they believe strongly in. Communist Russia for example. How many people died under Stalin and Mao? Perhaps people should hold no strong convictions at all, eh?

Americans are forwarding kidnapping, torture and assassination as tools of government these days. U!S!A!, U!S!A! because religion is no longer the coin of the day in America, they get people riled up with patriotism and fear instead of God and fear.

[svirk]

You're forgetting the part that we can observe the occurrence of minutely probable events but there is no such verification for the fantasy of a metaphysical creator.

There is no verification for what began the universe. There are only 4 options:

1. The Universe doesn't exist.
2. The Universe has always existed.
3. The Universe came into being on its own.
4. The Universe has a Creator.

It is not a scientific question and science cannot answer it. It is a philosophical question which the atheist, by declaring himself and atheist, is unfit to answer.

Secondly, there is verification for the existence of God. Worship is ingrained in humans and you will not find it as hard as you may pretend to... pray to God and you will have an answer. It may take years.

[svirk]

Atheists cynical as they may be, have never done such things...

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot?

Don't forget Americans have killed over a million Vietnamese and Iraqis in their last few wars of aggression. Were these because of religion?

[svirk]

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot?

Good point, but it could be argued they simply elevated themselves to god status. Cutting out the middle-man doesn't necessarily make it "atheism".


Humans will kill for any reason they hold dear enough. Religion, the common belief of a group of people, is often used by those with nefarious ends in mind. Whether that is an actual religion or if it is in the name of a political ideology such as Communism, Nazism or any form of extreme patriotism, we can hardly hold religion itself responsible.

[mjmacky]

You're forgetting the part that we can observe the occurrence of minutely probable events but there is no such verification for the fantasy of a metaphysical creator.

There is no verification for what began the universe. There are only 4 options:

1. The Universe doesn't exist.
2. The Universe has always existed.
3. The Universe came into being on its own.
4. The Universe has a Creator.

It is not a scientific question and science cannot answer it. It is a philosophical question which the atheist, by declaring himself and atheist, is unfit to answer.

Secondly, there is verification for the existence of God. Worship is ingrained in humans and you will not find it as hard as you may pretend to... pray to God and you will have an answer. It may take years.

I'll tackle both points.

For the first, we actually can approach the question of how the universe began, and it involves science and stuff. When we use observations, experimentation, and analysis to draw conclusions, we've implemented what is known as the scientific method. Philosophy is the earliest form of science. When an explanation becomes generally accepted with no major alternative explanation (which would also have been derived from the scientific method), the consensus upgrades those independent conclusions into a working theory. Regarding the universe's beginning, there's this thing called the big bang theory. You might know about it as some TV show with a laugh track, but it's also a real theory. There are scientists trying to create small black holes even. By the way, this obscure theory falls under option 3.

Addressing your second point is a much more interesting topic for me, and it's for a rather personal reason. I was brought up in religion, and for an extended part of my youth, I was deep in it. The deeper I went, the stronger my doubt became. I made a point to educate myself on matters concerning religion and mythology in general, and it allowed me to debunk the absolute truths they were attempting to offer. However, I had only labeled myself an agnostic at that point, for there was the matter of understanding the worship of a metaphysical being that made it feel like it was still possible. How was I able to reconcile this?

When I was in China, I was in the town of Jingshan, a village of roughly 600,000 rural Chinese in the Hubei province. In the center of town, there was a work of art depicting some Greek mythology tales (statues to be exact), and its presence struck me. When I began asking some of the English speaking locals about it, each conversation reached the same end result. These people had a rather difficult time understanding the concept of a god. How could this be? Why does it seem like such an easy concept for me and others who have grown up in the West? The key difference was the banning of the major religions. Granted religions still exist in China, but the people I was talking to had the distinct advantage of not having been brought up in any of those religions.

What's the point of my tale? It's that what I had believed as a natural human condition to believe in gods, instead turned out to be the product of impressionable children. Those of us brought up in the system have it imprinted on our psyche, as tends to happen with everything as children. If only you were fortunate enough to have never been instructed to believe these mythologies as a kid, you wouldn't have any difficulty rejecting them.

Therefore, I refute the notion of worship of a higher being as something genetically programmed. It was also this realization that allowed me to stop pussy footing the agnostic banner and admit to being a full-on atheist.

My god, are these topics crack cocaine to me or what?

[mjmacky]

Good point, but it could be argued they simply elevated themselves to god status. Cutting out the middle-man doesn't necessarily make it "atheism".


Humans will kill for any reason they hold dear enough. Religion, the common belief of a group of people, is often used by those with nefarious ends in mind. Whether that is an actual religion or if it is in the name of a political ideology such as Communism, Nazism or any form of extreme patriotism, we can hardly hold religion itself responsible.

While those commonalities may be true, the difference is the mechanism of manipulation; religion fucks with the afterlives for those who believe that they have them. It's a tool that performs on an entirely different level and should require such a distinction.

[svirk]

For the first, we actually can approach the question of how the universe began, and it involves science and stuff. When we use observations, experimentation, and analysis to draw conclusions, we've implemented what is known as the scientific method. Philosophy is the earliest form of science. When an explanation becomes generally accepted with no major alternative explanation (which would also have been derived from the scientific method), the consensus upgrades those independent conclusions into a working theory. Regarding the universe's beginning, there's this thing called the big bang theory. You might know about it as some TV show with a laugh track, but it's also a real theory. There are scientists trying to create small black holes even. By the way, this obscure theory falls under option 3.

Science cannot help us deduce what happened before the laws of science came into existence.

"Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed up mass, then We clove them asunder and We made every living thing out of water. Will they not then believe?" [Quran 21:30] I have no problem with the Big Bang theory or evolution but I find that our greater understanding of the mechanisms of creation ought to lead one closer to the belief in a Creator... not taken as some sort of evidence against God.

[IdolEyes787]

The "Laws" of science always existed even before someone thought to name them.

[svirk]

Addressing your second point is a much more interesting topic for me, and it's for a rather personal reason. I was brought up in religion, and for an extended part of my youth, I was deep in it. The deeper I went, the stronger my doubt became. I made a point to educate myself on matters concerning religion and mythology in general, and it allowed me to debunk the absolute truths they were attempting to offer. However, I had only labeled myself an agnostic at that point, for there was the matter of understanding the worship of a metaphysical being that made it feel like it was still possible. How was I able to reconcile this?

When I was in China, I was in the town of Jingshan, a village of roughly 600,000 rural Chinese in the Hubei province. In the center of town, there was a work of art depicting some Greek mythology tales (statues to be exact), and its presence struck me. When I began asking some of the English speaking locals about it, each conversation reached the same end result. These people had a rather difficult time understanding the concept of a god. How could this be? Why does it seem like such an easy concept for me and others who have grown up in the West? The key difference was the banning of the major religions. Granted religions still exist in China, but the people I was talking to had the distinct advantage of not having been brought up in any of those religions.

What's the point of my tale? It's that what I had believed as a natural human condition to believe in gods, instead turned out to be the product of impressionable children. Those of us brought up in the system have it imprinted on our psyche, as tends to happen with everything as children. If only you were fortunate enough to have never been instructed to believe these mythologies as a kid, you wouldn't have any difficulty rejecting them.

Therefore, I refute the notion of worship of a higher being as something genetically programmed. It was also this realization that allowed me to stop pussy footing the agnostic banner and admit to being a full-on atheist.


Your claim that a particular group of Chinese did not have a concept of God since no one taught it to them fails on two fronts;

1. The fact that there are faiths and religions all over the world from the earliest human civilizations to the present suggests that people who had no concept of God acquired it rather easily and that worship is ingrained in people. Where did all these religions come from if, as you claim, those brought up in a system without religion have no difficulty rejecting them? Some crazy lunatic calling himself a prophet comes to a people with no religion and starts telling them lies about God and the community accepts him as a wise leader? Or is it the arrogance of those atheists living in the present that leads them to believe that those living in the past were ignorant dupes who easily accepted all sorts of nonsense about a Creator?

2. Most Chinese practice a mix of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. They may not directly acknowledge God in the form of a Zeus like being or in the same sense as Christianity and Islam but they are feeding their innate desire to worship. Some Buddhists will go so far as claim atheism while at the same time having raised Buddha to an object of worship on par with God. In Confucianism and Taoism we have concepts of Heaven, with a capital "H", i.e. the Dictates of Heaven. This is not that far from the Will of God in Islam. We have concepts like Nirvana in Chinese culture which the West would call Salvation.

[svirk]

The "Laws" of science always existed even before someone thought to name them.

Name them whatever you like but they did not exist before they existed. Right?

[megabyteme]

The "Laws" of science always existed even before someone thought to name them.

Name them whatever you like but they did not exist before they existed. Right?

Phenomena exist without being identified by man. Scientists are often only describers, not creators.

Example: A pile of rocks existed in the same amount/quantity even before man devised a system for weighing and counting.

[svirk]

Name them whatever you like but they did not exist before they existed. Right?

Phenomena exist without being identified by man. Scientists are often only describers, not creators.

Example: A pile of rocks existed in the same amount/quantity even before man devised a system for weighing and counting.

You're missing the point. The pile of rocks didn't exist before they existed. The Universe didn't exist before it existed. The laws of the Universe didn't exist before the Universe came into existence. My point was that, if you want to argue the Universe has always existed it is a philosophical discussion that science cannot address.

[megabyteme]

You're missing the point. The pile of rocks didn't exist before they existed. The Universe didn't exist before it existed. The laws of the Universe didn't exist before the Universe came into existence. My point was that, if you want to argue the Universe has always existed it is a philosophical discussion that science cannot address.

And you wish to argue that out of absolutely nothing came a being that was the all-wise creator of everything else? If so, that seems to be a MUCH bigger expectation than building up of things from basic matter. :idunno: