View Full Version : Is any one else on these boards an atheist?
InsaneApache
12-06-2006, 20:06
Just being a bit naughty....or am I? :whip:
If you have the atheist in you, why? What brought you to that conclusion? :inquisitive:
For myself, I shall reveal why, if the thread is positive. :mask:
Lorenzo_H
12-06-2006, 20:20
oh wow this looks familiar...
I became an atheist after beginning to doubt my Methodist upbringing. As a teenager, I asked my pastor one day about something which had been bothering me. Prompted by some news stories at the time, I asked why God allows children, especially innocent babies to be tortured and murdered. His response was that God was calling the child to Heaven. I pointed out that such wasn't my question. If this just and loving God, and most importantly all-powerful and all-knowing God, wanted to call an innocent baby to Heaven, then why allow that innocent baby to be tortured, sexually abused and murdered first? He had no answer; so I went looking for one.
I had already read the Bible cover to cover several times. I did so again. There was no answer. I am unable to believe that a so-called loving and just God would do such a thing, for any reason. That called into question all my other beliefs. I began to discover all of the various inconsistencies in those beliefs. I ceased to be a Christian in any sense. I searched elsewhere, but other religions were also full of blatant inconsistencies. All of them. By high school I was rather well-informed on various religions and belief-systems. I began to take an interest in the history of religion, how early humans developed their myths. At just the right point, I discovered Joseph Campbell. And that was the end of my belief in the mystical. I was cured of a need for ancient archetypes.
doc_bean
12-06-2006, 20:41
Although I'd call myself an agnostic, you can pretty much count me as an atheist.
Don Corleone
12-06-2006, 20:44
I've toyed with the idea that God doesn't exist. I could truly believe that He does if I hadn't considered the very real possiblity that He does not. I'm just not wired that way though, I'm afraid. 1) I find anecdotal evidence (well, to me) everywhere and 2) even if I could force myself to set all that aside, life rapidly becomes meaningless to me in such a context. As humans, we strive to have purpose. It is fundamental to our nature. Now, I couldn't use this for an argument for a Christian God, because there's plenty of alternate theories on how this hard-wiring for purpose got into our brains. But it certainly points away from 'nothing at all', at least it does to me.
I've posted previously about the mystery and grandeur of the universe, and how that consistently leads me back to theism. But all I've ever gotten for my pains is smart-aleck kids with sassmouth telling me I'm a ninny, so I'm not going to bother this time.
It's called "faith" because it cannot be proved. You either have it or you don't, and I rather suspect it's genetic in nature. People who have faith, much like people who have a sense of humor, are more apt to survive tragedies and disasters. It's probably an evolutionary advantage to have faith in something bigger.
There, now I've offended everybody. The Christian fundies will hate my evolution-based argument for faith, and the atheists will resent my assertion that they're less survivable. Merry Christmas, Bedford Falls! Merry Christmas, you old savings and loan!
Sasaki Kojiro
12-06-2006, 21:18
Born and raised.
And Lemur I don't remember calling you a ninny :/ though I did comment on your mystery of the universe thing.
Dutch_guy
12-06-2006, 21:35
I consider myself an atheist, yes.
:balloon2:
Somebody Else
12-06-2006, 21:49
No religion here... I believe in myself, sometimes.
I do like some of the paraphenalia of religion though - there's nothing quite like drunkenly belting out schoolboy hymns in restaurants/bars/taxis/atop some lunatic mountain.
I'm not going to believe something without any basis for doing so, and a whole bunch of people all claiming the same belief doesn't sway me; a whole bunch of people believe, for example, the antics of some peasant footballer are interesting. Not me.
lancelot
12-06-2006, 21:54
Im an atheist to the core...I have had many debates with people of the religious persuation...ironically enough, I have yet to 'convert' one to my way of thinking :2thumbsup:
I often argue my perspective from the following points-
1) Why is Christianity for example a religion, yet many other things are considered wacky cults...only difference I can see is that Christianity has 2000 years of driftwood attached to it...yet this somehow makes it legitimate? :juggle2:
2) Similarly, do people believe in superman or 'the force'? If people went around saying superman was their god, they would be branded as borderline insane...there is as much proof of a god existing as there is superman, so again- why is one legitimate and the other not?
3) Belief in miracles. What is up with that? A large proportion of a human brain is 'unused' and uncharted, yet unexplained things are often atributed to divine intervention...is it not more likely people are unconciously tapping into a part of their 'unused' brain...ala xmen/mutant evolution?
4) Isnt it all a little convenient? Forgiveness for sins, an afterlife that just happens to be paradise, seeing all your relatives again...c'mon people...life isnt that perfect.
I could go on but I'll leave it at that for starters.
InsaneApache
12-06-2006, 21:55
Rooney? :inquisitive:
Yes, since I was about 7 or 8, and started noticing the major issues I was having reconciling what I read in science-related stuff and was was said in church.
Louis VI the Fat
12-06-2006, 22:14
Is any one else on these boards an atheist?
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Respect/0018.gif
Lorenzo_H
12-06-2006, 22:24
I became an atheist after beginning to doubt my Methodist upbringing. As a teenager, I asked my pastor one day about something which had been bothering me. Prompted by some news stories at the time, I asked why God allows children, especially innocent babies to be tortured and murdered. His response was that God was calling the child to Heaven. I pointed out that such wasn't my question. If this just and loving God, and most importantly all-powerful and all-knowing God, wanted to call an innocent baby to Heaven, then why allow that innocent baby to be tortured, sexually abused and murdered first? He had no answer; so I went looking for one.
I had already read the Bible cover to cover several times. I did so again. There was no answer. I am unable to believe that a so-called loving and just God would do such a thing, for any reason. That called into question all my other beliefs. I began to discover all of the various inconsistencies in those beliefs. I ceased to be a Christian in any sense. I searched elsewhere, but other religions were also full of blatant inconsistencies. All of them. By high school I was rather well-informed on various religions and belief-systems. I began to take an interest in the history of religion, how early humans developed their myths. At just the right point, I discovered Joseph Campbell. And that was the end of my belief in the mystical. I was cured of a need for ancient archetypes.
How can you know what is the difference between good and bad, right and wrong without some preliminary knowledge given to you by something.
To put it into perspective, how can you know a line is crooked unless you have seen a straight line before? How can you know when something is wrong, if you don't know what is right?
I believe in myself, sometimes.
So you believe in somebody else?~D
Sorry, couldn't resist.:clown:
Justiciar
12-06-2006, 22:48
I've had a strict Aethiest upbringing. I even attended a State School. That said I was never really lacking piety, and I've been to a Church on a number of occasions. Perhaps it's because of that slip towards faith that I'm having doubts. Perhaps god does exist afterall. Infact, I might even go so far as to call myself an Agnostic. My parents look down on me because of that, but it's what I choose to believe! :shame:
Lorenzo_H
12-06-2006, 22:56
Wow! you poor child, not an example of freedom of will!
Sasaki Kojiro
12-06-2006, 23:00
How can you know what is the difference between good and bad, right and wrong without some preliminary knowledge given to you by something.
To put it into perspective, how can you know a line is crooked unless you have seen a straight line before? How can you know when something is wrong, if you don't know what is right?
https://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9102/pdbs001054yt0.jpg
Crooked: having or marked by bends or angles
Ta-da!
Lorenzo_H
12-06-2006, 23:15
Yeah, but who first found that out? Nice post though...very creative.
ZombieFriedNuts
12-06-2006, 23:23
All hail the sensible people and as my dad says religion just an excuse for war
Sasaki Kojiro
12-06-2006, 23:25
Yeah, but who first found that out? Nice post though...very creative.
Someone looked at a line that was straight and said: "we'll call this straight"
Then they looked at a line that was crooked and said: "we'll call this crooked"
And thus the English language was born.
AntiochusIII
12-06-2006, 23:27
God showed me that Atheism is the right way to go.
Big_John
12-06-2006, 23:30
i was basically raised with no concept of god forced upon me by my parents, though they are both theists. i never really thought about the concept until i was probably 10 or so. when i did think about it, i approached it simply as an evidentiary concern. since i saw no evidence of "god", and still don't, i see no reason to believe in it.
Yeah, but who first found that out? Nice post though...very creative.
Diablo, leave them be. If they don't want to believe in God, it's their personal choice. Don't go Jehovah's witness on us.:laugh4:
Somebody Else
12-06-2006, 23:34
So you believe in somebody else?~D
Yep. And that somebody is clearly nobody important, therefore not worth believing in...
Yeah, but who first found that out? Nice post though...very creative.
Someone with a bit of string and 2 sticks...
Maybe the horizon in Beligum.
Claudius the God
12-06-2006, 23:41
I find the simple definition of Atheism to be too limiting a definition for self-description. I would say that I'm a Secular Humanist, with views somewhere inbetween Agnosticism and Atheism
are there any other Humanists or Secular Humanists here?
Blodrast
12-07-2006, 00:03
Is any one else on these boards an atheist ?
No. ~D
I'm a believer.
And sorry, I must have missed it when it happened last time, but I can't pass it up now: :laugh4:
Lemur is a ninny, Lemur is a ninny... :clown: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Well that's a separate issue, Claudius. Yes, I'm also consider myself a rationalist and a secular humanist. I came to those positions before I discovered libertarian socialism and thus found much smarter people than myself who had also considered questions such as the one diablodelmar asked. The socialist ideas of mutual aid and mutual benefit arise from the same foundations as secular humanism and concepts of humanist ethics which don't require an outside supernatural source saying basically, "you must be good because I said so!"
And Lemur I don't remember calling you a ninny :/ though I did comment on your mystery of the universe thing.
Not only did you call me a ninny, you said I had poopy pants. And then you danced around and poked a stick in my eye. I remember all of this clearly.
Lemur is a ninny, Lemur is a ninny... :clown: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You see? You see how the mean kids treat me? That does it, I'm taking my marbles and running home to mommy.
Proletariat
12-07-2006, 03:53
I became an atheist after beginning to doubt my Methodist upbringing. As a teenager, I asked my pastor one day about something which had been bothering me. Prompted by some news stories at the time, I asked why God allows children, especially innocent babies to be tortured and murdered. His response was that God was calling the child to Heaven. I pointed out that such wasn't my question. If this just and loving God, and most importantly all-powerful and all-knowing God, wanted to call an innocent baby to Heaven, then why allow that innocent baby to be tortured, sexually abused and murdered first? He had no answer; so I went looking for one.
If you admit God is all knowing, how can you disbelieve in him because you don't understand the way his world works? I'm an atheist and can see a problem with that logic.
Soulforged
12-07-2006, 04:34
It was a pretty slow but steady fall from faith. I was actually pretty faithful, I even went to church until I was like 12 or 13 years old (not that long ago) and I even fanatically followed what I believed to be christian morals (Chatolic Apostolic Roman Church dogma). However all started to change after my uncle's death, it's hard to recover from such a blow, even so I forced myself to praise God further. I still believed but I also hated. When that hatred passed away I had a lot of questions for my religion teacher in the school (yes religion teacher, we call that assignature "catequesis" here), wich didn't return any desired answers. When I reached the University I remember reading Bakunin's "God and the State" wich determined me as an atheist. That was, simply put, the breaking point. Then I started to hate religion and religious people, hatred that grew when my father died, but I'm now simply an atheist, that hatred has disappeared completely.
However I'm almost sure when I say this: Everyone will look to a superior power when his life is menaced or when the questions are not answered by science, I do it myself when I hope for a life after this life.
However I'm almost sure when I say this: Everyone will look to a superior power when his life is menaced or when the questions are not answered by science, I do it myself when I hope for a life after this life.
This reminds me of that old -- and false -- canard about how "there are no atheists in foxholes." Demonstrably false. Atheists have served, fought, and died for our nation, and for many other nations besides.
They've even got a bit of a web site (http://www.maaf.info/index.html).
Although I believe in the Almighty, I think it's false and demeaning to think that atheists (a) cannot have a basis for morality, and (b) cannot adhere to their beliefs in the face of danger, or even death.
A good person is a good person, no matter his or her belief system. And by the same token, a rotten, conniving back-stabber will be all that whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Manx.
CrossLOPER
12-07-2006, 07:46
how can you know a line is crooked
Pay attention in calculus?
Lorenzo_H
12-07-2006, 08:51
Pay attention in calculus?
Yeah! But If your calculus teacher had never seen a straight line he wouldn't have known!
doc_bean
12-07-2006, 09:44
Yeah! But If your calculus teacher had never seen a straight line he wouldn't have known!
If somethign as a straight line existed then he would be able to see and draw it, since it's clearly defined.
What was your point again ? Because I'm really not following this straight line thing...
Lorenzo_H
12-07-2006, 09:47
You cannot know if something was wrong if someone/something hadn't put it on your mind that it was wrong. i.e. your conscience. Which God gave you.
Banquo's Ghost
12-07-2006, 09:59
How can you know what is the difference between good and bad, right and wrong without some preliminary knowledge given to you by something.
To put it into perspective, how can you know a line is crooked unless you have seen a straight line before? How can you know when something is wrong, if you don't know what is right?
I hesitate a moment before engaging you again, but I trust this will be relevant to the thread, and the issue of atheists having no basis for a moral compass.
Diablo*, you are a Christian and take the Bible as your moral guide, I believe?
Even if I accept some of your premises (for the sake of argument) such as the age of the earth and humanity (just over 4000 years of history, as I understand your position) throughout most of that time, the bulk of humanity had no access to the lessons of the Bible.
Yet there is good historical evidence that they developed moral codes. In your terms, they knew what a straight line looked like. How so?
If you argue that your god somehow gave them this information before they saw the bible, then you are accepting that there are divinely inspired texts and influences beyond that tome. If the bible is the only source of moral inspiration, how did these cultures develop moral codes before they were evangelised? If it is possible to develop a moral code from a belief system other than that of the Christian bible, why is the atheist belief system uniquely unable to do it?
*I note the humour about your religion in your recent signature, so perhaps you do see the delicious joy in being able to address you in these debates by your abbreviated user-name. :grin:
AntiochusIII
12-07-2006, 10:02
You cannot know if something was wrong if someone/something hadn't put it on your mind that it was wrong. i.e. your conscience. Which God gave you.Err...
God so did not give me my conscience.
In fact, I think something in the back of my head named Prometheus or somesuch is responsible for it. Or that's what he's always telling me.
Oh, and he's the one who taught me how to write a straight line. And make fire. ~;)
Well, it's a matter of believing: you believe in God or you don't.
On the other hand, if one dares to state he believes in God, chances are some atheist asks him to prove to him there is a God.
Now I would like to reverse this question and ask the atheists: prove to me there is NO God... :grin:
AntiochusIII
12-07-2006, 10:17
Now I would like to reverse this question and ask the atheists: prove to me there is NO God... :grin:Who says I don't believe in a Creator? I just don't believe in some old, outdated concept like a grandfatherly figure with a mean streak creating everything and calling his creations "Ma Cheeldrien."
Ugh.
What I believe, however, is that reality is but a dream of a certain, all-powerful being, and that certain being is:
https://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6572/haruhisuzumiyant8.jpg
:jester:
Banquo's Ghost
12-07-2006, 10:38
Well, it's a matter of believing: you believe in God or you don't.
On the other hand, if one dares to state he believes in God, chances are some atheist asks him to prove to him there is a God.
Now I would like to reverse this question and ask the atheists: prove to me there is NO God... :grin:
Most atheists tend to have to ask a believer to provide some evidence because the believer is questioning their ability to function as a human being without belief in a higher being.
The reverse of the question is a useless exercise. If a believer is unwilling to accept the constraints of scientific method which rests upon hypotheses supported or disproved by observation - because his god cannot be observed - then there cannot be proof of that deity's absence. The word proof is redundant.
You might as well ask someone to prove to you the non-existence of leprechauns, fairies, gryphons, flibbertigibbets and every figment ever imagined or yet to be imagined. None of these beliefs can be tested, thus require faith, not proof.
The atheist simply discounts your unprovable hypothesis as having no practical influence on his daily activity. When you try to make him take it into account, he asks you to provide him with proof that it is a hypothesis he should be aware of. More militant atheists work against the very real practical influences believers exert on their daily lives. Some while ago, I posted about a judge who was disciplined because he admitted to taking advice from some ethereal dwarves. Yet many people in senior positions of influence claim that they receive advice from a similarly ethereal bearded fellow of greater than normal stature and this is seen as a desirable qualification for office. Why?
You might better amuse yourself by asking you why - if your faith allows for the existence of unprovable beings - it is your unprovable being that is the true one - as opposed to the legion of others. If I were a believer, this would be the preoccupation of my thoughts. Why is my deity and his/her moral code the only one that should be believed in? What techniques can I employ to ascertain the truth? Am I entirely sure that I should practise kindness and peace to all men to enter the promised land, rather than acts of heroism, violence and valour as advised by other invisible bearded chaps? Maybe it would be a good after-life choice to blow myself to glory in a crowd of schoolchildren for the reward of paradise and pliable virgins? Is a beard strictly necessary for divinity?
These and many, many more challenges presented by unprovable gods should occupy the believer, not the fate of those who don't believe.
Prove your god to yourself. :bow:
I was indoctrinated into atheism from birth. Brought up among a notorious atheist sect in a secluded mountain hideaway, preached to on a daily basis by atheist "hate preachers" under our mighty leader Osama Int Bin LaidYet we plotted the downfall of all religion.
InsaneApache
12-07-2006, 11:12
Well, it's a matter of believing: you believe in God or you don't.
On the other hand, if one dares to state he believes in God, chances are some atheist asks him to prove to him there is a God.
Now I would like to reverse this question and ask the atheists: prove to me there is NO God... :grin:
Surely the onus is on the proposition that something is there rather than that it is not.
Ok we've played nicely so I'll tell you why I arrived at my view.
Brought up an Anglican Catholic. Church on Sundays, Sunday school afterwards. Chorister in the school/church choir (until my balls dropped :beam: ) I was pretty much immersed in the faith.
R.E. at junior school and double R.E. at grammar school were imposed just make sure that I stayed `on message'.
Then I started learning about science. I was very much interested in the sciences, because in common with a lot of boys of my generation I wanted to be an astronaut. Man had landed on the Moon and the way to the stars lay before us (or so I thought at the time).
Physics and chemistry were my favourites but somehow I ended up doing a biology O level. :dizzy2: The more I learned, the more I found my new knowledge at variance with my faith. As hard as I tried I could not get the two to dovetail together.
Then I was introduced to the classics. The Illyiad, The Odessy et al. This made me ask myself about these older religions. About this time I was also exposed to other contemporary religions.
If Christianity, not just Christianity but the particular flavour that I had been taught, was right, then surely all these others must be, by definition wrong. If however one of the others was right, then mine must also be wrong. They couldn't all be right. Ergo they could all be wrong.
The more I looked at the Bible (King James version ~;) ) the more I became convinced that, although a great read and a belting tale, that's all it was, a tale.
There were other factors at play but this is the essence.
Lorenzo_H
12-07-2006, 13:01
I hesitate a moment before engaging you again, but I trust this will be relevant to the thread, and the issue of atheists having no basis for a moral compass.
Diablo*, you are a Christian and take the Bible as your moral guide, I believe?
Even if I accept some of your premises (for the sake of argument) such as the age of the earth and humanity (just over 4000 years of history, as I understand your position) throughout most of that time, the bulk of humanity had no access to the lessons of the Bible.
Yet there is good historical evidence that they developed moral codes. In your terms, they knew what a straight line looked like. How so?
If you argue that your god somehow gave them this information before they saw the bible, then you are accepting that there are divinely inspired texts and influences beyond that tome. If the bible is the only source of moral inspiration, how did these cultures develop moral codes before they were evangelised? If it is possible to develop a moral code from a belief system other than that of the Christian bible, why is the atheist belief system uniquely unable to do it?
*I note the humour about your religion in your recent signature, so perhaps you do see the delicious joy in being able to address you in these debates by your abbreviated user-name. :grin:
If you'll pardon my asking, but I didn't understand one bit of this post, escpecially regarding my username and signature.
Banquo's Ghost
12-07-2006, 13:41
If you'll pardon my asking, but I didn't understand one bit of this post, escpecially regarding my username and signature.
Hmm. OK.
Jokey part first. You have recently adopted this signature:
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me. Peter Kay
Since this pokes gentle fun at Christian morality, I took it as a sign that you have sense of humour about your faith. Your user name is translated as "devil of the sea" so I found it amusing to engage you in religious debate by referring to you as Diablo, or Devil. In the light of your apparent humour, I hoped this might lighten our discussions. :smile:
The substantive part of my post was to address your argument that atheists cannot be moral without god.
I noted that your god and his ethics were unknown to many historical cultures and yet they had moral guidelines.
I wanted to know how you thought this could happen before the word of your god got to them, since you appear to believe the bible is the only source of moral guidance.
I pre-empted some of your answers by giving examples of what those answers might mean.
Clearer?
Surely it is superior to be nice to people out of your own personal feelings, rather than out of fear of retribution from a god?
doc_bean
12-07-2006, 13:54
You cannot know if something was wrong if someone/something hadn't put it on your mind that it was wrong. i.e. your conscience. Which God gave you.
My parents thought me part of it, another part of morality is simply encoded in my genes because that kind of morality is beneficial to "society", and more importantly, my own survival (and chances to reproduce, and my possible future offspring).
If there is such a thing as absolute morality, how come some people claim piracy is one of the most heinous of crimes and others see it as a normal activity. How come women can walk around half naked here, yet have to be fully (I do mean fully) covered in same middle eastern places. How come a Pakistani tribal court can think gang raping someone's sister is a good sentence, while I find that disgusting ?
There's even a huge difference of morality between christians. How could the inquisition (clergymen no less) apply torture yet follow the same Bible as Methodists or the Amish ? Why do so many christian Americans approve of the death sentence, while christian workers around the world protest this practice ?
Morality is not absolute, it's relative, a way for a society to function. Society benefits mankind (medicin, science,taking care of eachother). That's why we have morality, because we are 'social' beings.
Lorenzo_H
12-07-2006, 14:20
My parents thought me part of it, another part of morality is simply encoded in my genes because that kind of morality is beneficial to "society", and more importantly, my own survival (and chances to reproduce, and my possible future offspring).
If there is such a thing as absolute morality, how come some people claim piracy is one of the most heinous of crimes and others see it as a normal activity. How come women can walk around half naked here, yet have to be fully (I do mean fully) covered in same middle eastern places. How come a Pakistani tribal court can think gang raping someone's sister is a good sentence, while I find that disgusting ?
There's even a huge difference of morality between christians. How could the inquisition (clergymen no less) apply torture yet follow the same Bible as Methodists or the Amish ? Why do so many christian Americans approve of the death sentence, while christian workers around the world protest this practice ?
Morality is not absolute, it's relative, a way for a society to function. Society benefits mankind (medicin, science,taking care of eachother). That's why we have morality, because we are 'social' beings.
Yes I am familiar with the arguement of absolutes. I think it's best to condemn these evil things, accept they are not part of what Jesus Christ taught, and follow his teachings. Luckily, I will probably never encounter a scenario in which my absolute values are to be tested (having said that, I plan to join the army).
Lorenzo_H
12-07-2006, 14:23
Hmm. OK.
Jokey part first. You have recently adopted this signature:
Since this pokes gentle fun at Christian morality, I took it as a sign that you have sense of humour about your faith. Your user name is translated as "devil of the sea" so I found it amusing to engage you in religious debate by referring to you as Diablo, or Devil. In the light of your apparent humour, I hoped this might lighten our discussions. :smile:
The substantive part of my post was to address your argument that atheists cannot be moral without god.
I noted that your god and his ethics were unknown to many historical cultures and yet they had moral guidelines.
I wanted to know how you thought this could happen before the word of your god got to them, since you appear to believe the bible is the only source of moral guidance.
I pre-empted some of your answers by giving examples of what those answers might mean.
Clearer?
Ah yes. I do have a sense of humour, you're right.
And you can call me whatever you want within reason. I chose diablo del mar as my name not because I am a devil worshipping sailor but because I like the Spanish language and it is a good name for a Spanish pirate ship in a novel I once read.
And what I said about people who have never read the bible, is that there is still hope for them.
doc_bean
12-07-2006, 14:27
I plan to join the army
How can you POSSIBLY do that knowing the first commandment ? :huh2: :huh2: :huh2:
Not mention Jesus' 'command' of turning the other cheek ?
How can you POSSIBLY do that knowing the first commandment ? :huh2: :huh2: :huh2:
Not mention Jesus' 'command' of turning the other cheek ?
It's ok to kill infidels apparently as they're already booked into hell anyway. All religion works like that. Scribble out a few words and change them around, rip out a few pages here and there... :inquisitive:
Watchman
12-07-2006, 14:47
Mom was raised to be a religious believer, but her faith kind of died out at the early teens. Not that she can accept the categorical denial of the "strong atheist" position eihter - too much undemonstrable issues of reverse faith.
Dad's enough of a conniving crook he probably never believed in the first place, regardless of nurture (which I presume to be primarily responsible of the former anyway). Certainly doesn't nowadays, and I've never bothered asking about earlier.
The elementary school I went to (and hated deeply) was of the deeply religious sort, which more or less tainted Christianity in particular and religious belief in general forever in my eyes by association. That's what you get for alienating kids with too much preaching at the tender formative stage.
End result is I unsurprisingly am none too convinced the divine exists, but don't really care either since I seem to get by right fine anyway. Others are free to find salvation for their souls the way they want as far as I'm concerned.
Is that just agnosticims or does it count as atheism ?
As for the crooked line, I doubt if its existence is particularly dependent of us. Once there is a sapient, language-using being like a human that perceives one through its senses it duly needs to preocure some sort of designation for it that differentiates it from what the being defines as a straight line though. A hassle that comes with the territory of being a sapient being that has to give names to things to differentiate them from other things.
And Antiochus ? Seconded. :2thumbsup: Nutball Haruhi beats some beardy old homophobe any day. :balloon2:
If you have the atheist in you, why? What brought you to that conclusion? :inquisitive:
Never believed in gods and so far havent had any divine revelations ~:)
There are lots of religions out there and some, if not most of them, claim to be the only true one. They cannot all be right, but all the evidence they seem to have is some kind of personal close connection to their god. I just need slightly more than "But I can feel his presence!" or whatever the claim is.
CBR
How can you POSSIBLY do that knowing the first commandment ? :huh2: :huh2: :huh2:
AFAIK the proper translation is more like "you shall not murder" The old Testament had no problems with killing in self defense/war, while doing it for personal gain is seen as wrong.
CBR
Surely it is superior to be nice to people out of your own personal feelings, rather than out of fear of retribution from a god?
Neither of these ways is it supposed to work if you are a christian, it's more like you develop into the first kind because if you love God, you will automatically and by your free will try to act as he wants you to act and that will change you as a person over time so that your own personal feelings will be nice.
Neither of these ways is it supposed to work if you are a christian, it's more like you develop into the first kind because if you love God, you will automatically and by your free will try to act as he wants you to act and that will change you as a person over time so that your own personal feelings will be nice.
Why do you have to love god to do that?
doc_bean
12-07-2006, 16:31
AFAIK the proper translation is more like "you shall not murder" The old Testament had no problems with killing in self defense/war, while doing it for personal gain is seen as wrong.
CBR
I believe most justified killing was in case of war (which would have been killing non-jews) or in applying 'justice'.
Now, in the old days, the jews were the chose people, so they could kill an enslave pretty much everyone all they wanted. Since JC, God has embraced all people, so by extension, killing anyone in case of war should be considered wrong.
The death penalty is arguably still valid, but then only in cases were the Bible allows it.
macsen rufus
12-07-2006, 16:46
Well, I think I'm an atheist, but agnostic is probably closer to it.
Most of the reasoning behind this position has been posited by other posters. IAs reasoning about if one religion is correct, then all the others are wrong is central in my thinking too, what I call the "One True Faith dilemma". Any believer (including atheists, in their way) generally adopts the belief of their culture, leaving the question "How come I had the fortune to be born into the ONE TRUE FAITH when the vast majority aren't?"
I totally reject the idea that morality can only come from religious belief, or that "conscience" is purely god-given. Our notions of "right and wrong" are socialised values. No one comes to maturity without being indoctrinated in the beliefs of their community, and like a fish in the sea, these values form part of the "moral environment" and are perceived as givens. "Conscience" is the act of judging yourself against the values you hold (wherever they are derived), and morality is NOT an issue of right and wrong but "how well do I fit the society around me?"
I prefer to draw a distinction between morality and ethics (and no pedantry please, I know I'm using both terms in a slightly non-standard way here :beam: ) whereby I see morality as the adherence to social norms as a matter of obedience (which I believe fits the religious Ten Commandments style of thinking), but ethics I see as the application of a set of value judgments to one's actions (which I believe is a better description for humanist value-sets). I agree with BDC that I prefer to know that people are restrained from killing me because they've thought about it and applied their values to their actions than because they're simply following orders - "thou shalt not kill" is a fine commandment, but following a rational decision to not kill is superior to my mind. In this way I see secular humanism as an advance in morality/ethics over and beyond the proscriptive, obedience-based moral codes derived from religious beliefs.
The whole idea of a personal and interested overbeing I find absurd. The agnostic tendency overlaid on my general atheist standpoint comes from a reverence for the principle of Life (life as a system, not every beloved little foetus) which is something special in the Universe. The self-organising, anti-entropic principle is awesome. BUT I don't feel it needs to have been designed, or created with "purpose". The study of complex systems proves that new behaviours emerge from them, and the chemistry of carbon is incredibly complex. Life is an emergent behaviour in organic chemistry, just as speciation, evolution, consciousness and intelligence are emergent in their turn.
Scientific method is the only grounds for investigating the nature of the universe, as it is transparent and repeatable, and REFUTABLE. We can be sure that where science can be refuted - a theory disproved - it WILL BE. Unlike religion which places itself above judgment. Science does not have all the answers - it is after all a process, not a doctrine. But more answers and explanations will come, more light will be shed into dark corners. I believe the universe to be rationally comprehendable, but that does not mean every individual human being will have the IQ necessary to understand all of it. I abhor the notion that if we come to a limit of what we can explain, for now, then the only explanation left must be "god did it." That's a capitulation, not an answer.
And then of course there is the "Problem of Evil" -- why should an all-powerful, all-knowing and supremely LOVING god allow evil and suffering to flourish? And if the existence of conscience "proves" God exists, doesn't the existence of psychopaths (in strict medical sense) therefore prove he doesn't?
Finally, one question for diablo:
I will probably never encounter a scenario in which my absolute values are to be tested
Really? Most of the committed Christians I know say their faith is engaged in the world and tested numerous times a day. I find my values tested every day, regardless that they are largely secular and humanist in origin. If your faith is not engaged in every action and decision, what role does it actually play in your life?
Lorenzo_H
12-07-2006, 18:50
How can you POSSIBLY do that knowing the first commandment ? :huh2: :huh2: :huh2:
Not mention Jesus' 'command' of turning the other cheek ?
Let me echo what CBR said. Thanks CBR.
Lorenzo_H
12-07-2006, 18:54
Really? Most of the committed Christians I know say their faith is engaged in the world and tested numerous times a day. I find my values tested every day, regardless that they are largely secular and humanist in origin. If your faith is not engaged in every action and decision, what role does it actually play in your life?
My faith and values are tested as well all the time.
What I meant is that I will never be a situation like the following:
You are in a certain country. A group of soldiers come up to you. They have 30 innocent prisoners. The leader says that he plans to shoot them all.
He then says, "But! You can save 29 of them, if you stab and kill one of them. But if you don't, I will have them shot."
See what I mean?
i was born into a mixed household....my mother is Christian while my father is an Atheist.
During primary school I was sent to a private school run by nuns....during my time there I begin to suspect that this religion thing was kind of a sham....if you asked a tough question they just avoided it, and it seemed to me the only use of religion was to keep people in line....."be a good boy or god will be mad at you".
later on in high-school we began to get more formation in fields like biology and such...this along with reading about various religions and their place in history further marked the point for me that this god business made no sense at all.
You cannot know if something was wrong if someone/something hadn't put it on your mind that it was wrong. i.e. your conscience. Which God gave you.
the things that are normally considered "wrong" are things that are harmful to the normal functioning and maintaining of a society...
when people started living in groups they noticed that if you engage in certain behavior then the group falls apart....while other actions make the group stronger...
It´s better to work together with the men next to you gathering food for the winter than to kill him
It´s better not to steal another man´s woman because that might lead to fighting that might disturb the group and make it harder for everyone to survive.
the examples go on....
these things can be derived by simple observation and using your head a little bit...no need for a god to come and "put it into your head"....people invented the social constructs of "right" and "wrong" so that things would work out better.
and what better way to make sure that people follow these rules than to make up a story about a magical boogeyman that will punish you if you don´t follow them?
and here we are.....dealing with religion
macsen rufus
12-07-2006, 19:12
@diablo: bit of an extreme situation, and one that would test anyone, regardless of their beliefs. Such a situation can only be handled as and when it arises -- any attempt to say "I would do..." whatever is unlikely to be more than wishful thinking.
For my part, what I hope I would be able to do, is to try to defuse the dilemma presented, anyhow I possibly could. The first priority should be to try to save all 30, but I don't think saving the 29 by becoming the killer of the 1 would be ethical.
anyway have to go, sorry can't finish now....
Ironside
12-07-2006, 20:10
If you admit God is all knowing, how can you disbelieve in him because you don't understand the way his world works? I'm an atheist and can see a problem with that logic.
It's more connected to that if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, how exactly can you put him in a category that makes him "good", by the standards he have placed down himself?
diablodelmar, do you consider animals to have a concience or is that a speciffic human abillity?
More of the agnostic direction myself. While it might exist beings we would consider divine, I would not worship them. And my life functions very well without needing to bother myself with the question.
The idea of afterlife is fascinating, although there's one idea that have bothered me for a while in Christian theology. Do you have to live forever, even in heaven? Because if you remain too human, this is starting to become worrysome. I cannot comprehend living a 1.000.000.000 years and it's still nothing compared to the eternity. Because in that case, I would chose the void that comes with death, even the one that makes you nothing compared to the whole universe.
Let me echo what CBR said. Thanks CBR.
Strange because my King James Bible clearly says "Thou shalt not kill". Could it be then that the pens of man have erred? Could it be that the Bible is not an absolute, but rather open to interpretation? Clearly we have two meanings from one sentence here, and a fairly central part of the whole affair it is too. You, who call yourself a Christian, who follows the word of his Protestant Bible will happily join the army? An organisation which, at its most basic, exists to break one of God's Commandments, and organisation which will certainly ask you to break that Commandment, and expect you to obey Man while disobeying your God? And to get around this you claim mistranslation of a book which you have previously claimed to be inviolate? You cannot have it both ways. I call hypocrite.
Lorenzo_H
12-07-2006, 20:24
You shouldnt kill without a morally justifiable reason. God ordered people to be killed for breaking his law.
Oh fantastic. Does that instruction carry more weight than one of the Commandments? Or is it merely used as an excuse for evil men to raze cities and slaughter people? The Bible, it would seem, is more a tool of Man than the Word of God. You yourself are using it as such a tool.
InsaneApache
12-07-2006, 20:54
Let me echo what macsen rufus said. Thanks macsen rufus.
Much eloquently than I could have possibly put it. :bow:
If you admit God is all knowing, how can you disbelieve in him because you don't understand the way his world works? I'm an atheist and can see a problem with that logic.
What? I was talking from the viewpoint of when I was still a believer. Really now Proletariat, it wasn't that difficult a read, was it?
Proletariat
12-08-2006, 00:06
In a thread on atheism, you're annoyed that your only stated conflict with Christianity (not counting the rest, since you just blanketed them) was commented upon by me, and has nothing to do with the topic. I apologize for this. Please forgive me for going so far off the deep end.
:shame:
Soulforged
12-08-2006, 00:20
This reminds me of that old -- and false -- canard about how "there are no atheists in foxholes." Demonstrably false. Atheists have served, fought, and died for our nation, and for many other nations besides.I was not trying to imply that Lemur. What I'm saying is that hope cannot come from plain perception when that perception transmits hopeless images? I'll be an atheist in those moments, as much as I'm now, but my hope sometimes doesn't come from science, even if I don't believe it.
Watchman
12-08-2006, 01:00
Since when were science and religion the only sources of hope anyway ? The former rarely tends to be even considered, although that depends on the issue... By what I've read of it what kept many people going in the trenches of the World Wars was neither, but the memory of home and the prospect of getting to see it again...
In a thread on atheism, you're annoyed that your only stated conflict with Christianity (not counting the rest, since you just blanketed them) was commented upon by me, and has nothing to do with the topic. I apologize for this. Please forgive me for going so far off the deep end.
:shame:
No, Proletariat, I'm annoyed that you've decided to come to this thread and nitpick, get the nitpick wrong, and completely ignore the topic of the thread which asked if anyone else was an atheist and is so then why. I answered the question posed in the original post honestly and openly. Has nothing to do with the topic? Are you on drugs? Go back and reread the original post. My first post in this thread was completely on topic, yours wasn't. Or are you assuming that the thread title is the topic instead oc actually reading the initial post? Wouldn't surprise me, really.
And, yes, it was over the line for you to make some erroneous assumption about my post, apparently due to misreading it or just looking to pick a fight. Now, is that clear enough for you to grasp?
Proletariat
12-08-2006, 04:27
Ah. You challenge my reading comprehension, then ask if I'm on drugs. I must be the one looking for a fight. I'd much rather have heard you reconcile the notion of an all-knowing God who's explanations don't satisfy a child's challenges, but I guess this thread was just supposed to be an atheist roster for the backroom.
I became an atheist after beginning to doubt my Methodist upbringing. As a teenager, I asked my pastor one day about something which had been bothering me. Prompted by some news stories at the time, I asked why God allows children, especially innocent babies to be tortured and murdered. His response was that God was calling the child to Heaven. I pointed out that such wasn't my question. If this just and loving God, and most importantly all-powerful and all-knowing God, wanted to call an innocent baby to Heaven, then why allow that innocent baby to be tortured, sexually abused and murdered first? He had no answer; so I went looking for one.God doesn't abuse and sexually assault babies- people do. It's called free will- people are free to do horrible things to themselves and each other. It's too bad that your pastor couldnt articulate that.
Ah. You challenge my reading comprehension, then ask if I'm on drugs. I must be the one looking for a fight. I'd much rather have heard you reconcile the notion of an all-knowing God who's explanations don't satisfy a child's challenges, but I guess this thread was just supposed to be an atheist roster for the backroom.
Well at least you can read medical charts - which is far more then I can do. :yes:
At least you're no longer in denial, Redleg. That's the first step to recovery.
At least you're no longer in denial, Redleg. That's the first step to recovery.
Was I addressing you?
I think not, now did I forget the smilie or did I not,,,,
But then again I can at least read government data charts....
InsaneApache
12-08-2006, 05:13
* picks the dummy up off the floor *
Please play nice kiddies. :yes:
My mistake. Looks like d'Nile is still flowing, just not particularly deep.
Was I addressing you?
Did I miss a meeting? When did that become a requirement in the backroom?
But then again I can at least read government data charts....
Ah, yes. But at least I can read and understand them. And unlike some in the present company, I can admit when I'm wrong, too. It's not a very difficult skill to learn. Give it a try sometime.
And no, you didn't miss a smilie. One didn't escape from you here either; although the point probably did.
Does the wherefore really matter, though?
My mistake. Looks like d'Nile is still flowing, just not particularly deep.
Did I miss a meeting? When did that become a requirement in the backroom?
Ah, yes. But at least I can read and understand them. And unlike some in the present company, I can admit when I'm wrong, too. It's not a very difficult skill to learn. Give it a try sometime.
And no, you didn't miss a smilie. One didn't escape from you here either; although the point probably did.
That was rather easy - would you like a shovel to dig yourself out of the hole you just fell in?.:inquisitive: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Too funny. You seem to think you've been clever. That never ceases to amuse me. It's like watching monkeys in the zoo. You feel rather sad for them; but you still laugh.
Does the wherefore really matter, though?
Shhh. Redleg wants to have a micturating contest; but he doesn't understand that he's using defective equipment. :wink: (<-- that was a smilie, in case Redleg was wondering)
Too funny. You seem to think you've been clever. That never ceases to amuse me. It's like watching monkeys in the zoo. You feel rather sad for them; but you still laugh.
Its getting even more amusing.
Edit:
Shhh. Redleg wants to have a micturating contest; but he doesn't understand that he's using defective equipment. (<-- that was a smilie, in case Redleg was wondering.
I can admit when I'm wrong, too. It's not a very difficult skill to learn.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Shhh. Redleg wants to have a micturating contest; but he doesn't understand that he's using defective equipment. :wink: (<-- that was a smilie, in case Redleg was wondering)
Not what I meant. You can keep your schoolyard argument with him to yourself. Everyone around here has done it before.
Its getting even more amusing.
I can admit when I'm wrong, too. It's not a very difficult skill to learn.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
We're supposed to believe you possess a skill which you never practice? Really now, your comeback was pretty lame. What's the matter, is dictionary.com down or something? I can explain my previous post to you, if it's really necessary. It was multil-levelled too. I expect I wasted it. Ah, well. :shrug:
Pssst, by the way, it's anonymous not annoymous. :laugh4:
We're supposed to believe you possess a skill which you never practice? Really now, your comeback was pretty lame. What's the matter, is dictionary.com down or something? I can explain my previous post to you, if it's really necessary. It was multil-levelled too. I expect I wasted it. Ah, well. :shrug:
Pssst, by the way, it's anonymous not annoymous. :laugh4:
Since I never claimed to be a big speller, it seems your right on track on showing that you also have a learning disablity along with a rather serious superiority complex
Rather amusing isn't.:inquisitive: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You don't need that shovel anylonger - your up a backhole
Yes, it is amusing. The one who can't spell even after seeing it at the end of post after post is saying I have a learning disability? Definitely amusing. And it's not a superiority complex if one is demonstrably superior. The proper term for that is fact. :wink:
Yes, it is amusing. The one who can't spell even after seeing it at the end of post after post is saying I have a learning disability? Definitely amusing. And it's not a superiority complex if one is demonstrably superior. The proper term for that is fact:wink:
Haven't seen a demonstration of superior ability yet. However, I have seen something else demonstrated multiple times by yourself .:juggle2: :laugh4:
The dog that's just been shown a magic trick usually doesn't get it either (to paraphrase Bill Hicks).
This calls for a signature change. The old one was getting dusty.
Not what I meant. You can keep your schoolyard argument with him to yourself. Everyone around here has done it before.
Give you a hint there Aenlic the esteemed gentleman in this quote hit the nail on the head. Your acting like a school yard bully, just like I knew you would when I quoted Proletariat. I knew you couldn't resist it, and you fell right into the trap. Its been fun and rather amusing, to see you respond to each post pretty much the way I figured you would from the very start. Edit: To include the one up above.
InsaneApache
12-08-2006, 06:00
Wouldn't this 'discussion' been better done by PM? Or is it deliberate to close the thread? :inquisitive:
Give you a hint there Aenlic the esteemed gentleman in this quote hit the nail on the head. Your acting like a school yard bully, just like I knew you would when I quoted Proletariat. I knew you couldn't resist it, and you fell right into the trap. Its been fun and rather amusing, to see you respond to each post pretty much the way I figured you would from the very start. Edit: To include the one up above.
Oh, please. That's one of your favorite tactics here when you get called on something or just generally make an ass of yourself in a post. You strike a pose and claim that you were just leading people about.
It's really overdone; although not quite as overdone as your all-time favorite which is to misuse the term ad hominem and accuse others of it after you've already done so in a debate. You seem to be clueless that saying someone else is using an ad hominem fallacy in an argument is itself an ad hominem argument. Every time you do it, it gets funnier. I know you're not 14 and suffering from too many hormones; so the real reason must be pretty sad. :laugh4:
Wouldn't this 'discussion' been better done by PM? Or is it deliberate to close the thread? :inquisitive:
This thread was going down hill way before my entry into it.
Wouldn't this 'discussion' been better done by PM? Or is it deliberate to close the thread? :inquisitive:
I'd suspect that of being his intent; but it would be too clever by far.
Sometimes smiley says it all:
:no:
doc_bean
12-08-2006, 09:52
Let me echo what CBR said. Thanks CBR.
Okay, how do you then combine 'not murdering but ending peoples lives so I get my paycheck at the end of the month' with the message of peace of JC ?
EDIT: O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys...
Banquo's Ghost
12-08-2006, 10:41
Well, I think it's just been demonstrated that atheists can conduct wars just as well as the faithful.
:rolleyes:
Claudius the God
12-08-2006, 11:43
Well, I think it's just been demonstrated that atheists can conduct wars just as well as the faithful.
:rolleyes:
how so?
there have been no wars in the name of Atheism...
Banquo's Ghost
12-08-2006, 11:55
how so?
there have been no wars in the name of Atheism...
:grin:
Read the last half of the thread with your sense of humour hat on.
Rodion Romanovich
12-08-2006, 11:55
I'm an atheist because atheism is better at predicting the future, fulfilling your prayers, and (unless you have other prejudice) give you a morality that saves lives and improves life for more people than other religion can ever do. Unfortunately I'm ashamed of many of my fellow atheists, who never live up to the potential of being atheists and don't bother reading the its holy books and devote themselves to understanding it scripture - philosophy and science. I think it's too easy to become an atheist, it just requires you to say you're "I'm an atheist", and you become one. I think there should be more difficult to become atheist so only those who are true atheists and following its ideals could become atheists.
macsen rufus
12-08-2006, 12:14
I think there should be more difficult to become atheist so only those who are true atheists and following its ideals could become atheists.
Sounds like you want to turn atheism into a religion ... you sound pretty fundamentalist about it. Or did I miss the smiley somewhere?
Rodion Romanovich
12-08-2006, 12:25
Sounds like you want to turn atheism into a religion ... you sound pretty fundamentalist about it. Or did I miss the smiley somewhere?
:wink:
EDIT: O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys...
Careful now - some do indeed see atheistism as a threat. :laugh4: :laugh4:
doc_bean
12-08-2006, 14:32
Careful now - some do indeed see atheistism as a threat. :laugh4: :laugh4:
I wonder why my English is actually getting worse :huh2: :shame:
I wonder why my English is actually getting worse :huh2: :shame:
Oh don't feel to bad - I can't spell either and its my native language. But you have to admit it was the perfect setup for my comment.
doc_bean
12-08-2006, 14:38
Oh don't feel to bad - I can't spell either and its my native language. But you have to admit it was the perfect setup for my comment.
That it was :2thumbsup:
macsen rufus
12-08-2006, 14:48
I wonder why my English is actually getting worse
cos of all the exposure to native speakers you get on this forum :laugh4:
That it was :2thumbsup:
Well upon review it makes for a good signature. One that I just can't resist.
Louis VI the Fat
12-08-2006, 14:56
threat
thread
tread
dread
treat
:wall:
For most it would have been enough to simply impose their imperialistic languange on the world. But no, those perfidious Albions then have to add insult upon injury by refusing to get a proper spelling. :furious3:
And to think there are beautiful, logical and consistent languages out there, perfected by centuries of Academic scrutiny. But as with religion over science, the illogical and inferior are winning. Gah, evolution, Gah! Darwin had it all wrong: the unfittest survive and prosper.
*weeps bitter tears*
Sorry 'bout that. You can all carry on now...
Banquo's Ghost
12-08-2006, 15:12
And to think there are beautiful, logical and consistent languages out there, perfected by centuries of Academic scrutiny. But as with religion over science, the illogical and inferior are winning. Gah, evolution, Gah! Darwin had it all wrong: the unfittest survive and prosper.
Nothing to do with Darwin, Louis. God designed it that way.
Which goes to prove, He is not a Frenchman. :wink3:
macsen rufus
12-08-2006, 15:49
the unfittest survive and prosper
Quite wrong, Louis. Having to cope with an illogical, contorted, irregular and paradoxical language means the Anglo-Saxon mind has to develop sufficiently to cope. Making it fitter and therefore able to dominate. These easy, logical languages breed up intellectual lightweights :laugh4:
Am I the only one to think we're just a stone's throw away from Babel fish and God disappearing in a puff of blue logic about now?? :beam:
Soulforged
12-08-2006, 17:08
Since when were science and religion the only sources of hope anyway ? The former rarely tends to be even considered, although that depends on the issue... By what I've read of it what kept many people going in the trenches of the World Wars was neither, but the memory of home and the prospect of getting to see it again...
You're right, but I was talking about my personal case only. I've never been to war, thanks God.... (:laugh4: )~;) ....by the way I'm also profoundly antimilatary.
Lorenzo_H
12-08-2006, 17:20
Its just too easy to be an atheist these days. Look at all the support they have.
screwtype
12-08-2006, 17:24
You shouldnt kill without a morally justifiable reason. God ordered people to be killed for breaking his law.
Yes, but if you join the army, it won't be God commanding you to kill, but a politician.
Do you also have faith that a politician will only ever ask you to kill for a "morally justifiable reason"? If so, you have much more faith in them than I do.
Soulforged
12-08-2006, 17:31
Its just too easy to be an atheist these days. Look at all the support they have.
It's to easy to say it's too easy and it's easier to say you said that it was easy...:dizzy2: Now really, both positions imply belief, believing in something is always easy. What's really hard is to learn and to act. If I were a real anarchist I wouldn't be talking in this forums, the atheism of an anarchist goes further, it becomes hatred towards any superior, supraempirical or not, power wich is concentrated. As such being an anarchist my slogan should be: "Even if there was a God, we should kill him", simply because anarchism cannot function with God in the picture.
LeftEyeNine
12-08-2006, 19:49
Put your believes to the shelf where they actually belong -between you and what you believe.
Secondly, I personally find the justification of atheism while religions caused so much problems within the humanity, although their point of view called "puny lonely selfness" can't explain how I see this universe organized and perfectly on rail coming from a definite start to an end human beings can't define.
Give you a hint there Aenlic the esteemed gentleman in this quote hit the nail on the head. Your acting like a school yard bully, just like I knew you would when I quoted Proletariat. I knew you couldn't resist it, and you fell right into the trap. Its been fun and rather amusing, to see you respond to each post pretty much the way I figured you would from the very start. Edit: To include the one up above.
Classy - you go an do what I told him not to do. He's not so much a schoolyard bully as you are both children acting up. If only it was eighty years ago, I'd cane you both until you shut up.
My apologies Gorebag. I responded to someone who claimed at one point, in this very thread, to be here not to discuss the topic in the thread but to harrass another member. It's typical of him, I don't like it, and considering my initial post in this thread I'm not a turn the other cheek kind of guy. But I am sorry. You'll notice my distinct lack of presence in the "is anyone else here a Christian" thread, a lesson which the other parties in this little hoohah might take to heart. :tongue:
Mithrandir
12-08-2006, 23:15
Wow, too bad I wasn't online for a while.
Seeing how this thread has gone downhill and has little potential of recovering, I'll answer the initial question.
I believe
I believe in commen decency, respect and the forum rules. But most of all,
I believe in the holy dancing lock.
:dancinglock:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.