Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[DeruIsLove]

And then there's the ones who keep trying to shove their belief systems where they absolutely don't being.

http://www.youtube/4LC6D7KsEvk

This country was founded on keeping exactly that kind of thing out of government. How is it that people like her are continually leading one of the major parties of the nation?

[Pokesan]

can we agree that being an agnostic is akin to being a coward?

too much of a pussy to make a goddamn decision

[DeruIsLove]

can we agree that being an agnostic is akin to being a coward?

too much of a pussy to make a goddamn decision

Not knowing and admitting that you don't/can't know is cowardly? :rolleyes:

[Pokesan]

refusing to make a meaningless decision is cowardly

[Danyelle]

Atheists are silly anyway. Everyone knows Luclin, the god of shadows, is the only true god in any reality. Anyone who doesn't worship her is pretty ridiculous.

I frequently perform sacrifices of rats, bats, and giant beetles to the moon goddess, hoping that one day we'll venture there.

[DeruIsLove]

refusing to make a meaningless decision is cowardly

One day I hope society progresses enough where making such a decision is actually meaningless.

[Pokesan]

One day I hope society progresses enough where making such a decision is actually meaningless.

is it brave to be an atheist?

[DeruIsLove]

is it brave to be an atheist?

I have family members that don't talk to me over it. I've known people who have had their cars vandalised for having a Darwin amphibian or a science rocket on them. I've been kicked out of class in High School for not saying "under god" several times and preemptively prevented from attending assemblies because of my lack of a faith.

That's just a couple of minor things off hand.

[DeruIsLove]

I should note that I live in the most liberal state in the union and went to public school and still had to deal with that. What happens down south makes me rage just thinking about it.

[Pokesan]

I have family members that don't talk to me over it. I've known people who have had their cars vandalised for having a Darwin amphibian or a science rocket on them. I've been kicked out of class in High School for not saying "under god" several times and preemptively prevented from attending assemblies because of my lack of a faith.

That's just a couple of minor things off hand.

do you feel persecuted for your atheism? do you think atheists as a group are being persecuted in america?

i'm dreadfully uninformed about the persecution of atheists - is any of it lion based?

that would be awful!

[DeruIsLove]

do you feel persecuted for your atheism? do you think atheists as a group are being persecuted in america?

i'm dreadfully uninformed about the persecution of atheists - is any of it lion based?

that would be awful!

That's an argumental fallacy known as false equivalency. Not only are you trying to argue that someone suffering more somehow negates the suffering of others, you are also comparing modern day America to ancient Rome. Let's not also forget that the Romans not only fed Christians to lions but also feed Jews, Gypsies, Huns, Africans and Persians to the lions in droves.

As for your ignorance, I did a quick google search for you. (http://www.alternet.org/story/151241/10_scariest_states_to_be_an_atheist)

[Malice_Mizer]

Just be thankful you live in America, then. You can complain about persecution for your disbelief, but it could be so much worse than simple mild-alienation and "other"-izing. That's to be expected. You're going against the grain of general society. Everybody else in human history who thought they were trailblazing the truth received their lashings with prideful honor (see: martyrs). Besides, for all of the lip-service we pay to God, the United States has a largely Godless culture where moral relativism and liberation of the sensual appetites is given sole supremacy, so that's one thing you've won at.

Look at that Sudanese Christian woman sentenced to death for apostasy because she's a Christian, for an example in current events. That's even in the same religious family as Islam, and it's still not satisfactory. Or the endless number of Christians in the Soviet Union/Communist China/Southeast Asia/Everywhere who were martyred and physically shoved into the outskirts of society over the past 100 years. You guys still have annoying charlatans like Dawkins and Sam Harris prancing around, agitating everybody with their dime-store philosophical deductions, so it can't be that bad.

Complain all you want about the pious and those who hope, but I think I'd rather be spat on by some self-righteous Christian or have my car vandalized for being an outspoken atheist than live as a religious person during one of humanity's many expressions of secular-humanism-as-religion. Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, and Mao Zedong alone outpace virtually every religion in body count alone, let alone unrelenting misery imposed on their entire unwilling populations for the sake of ideology.

Did I mention that Sam Harris is perhaps the most annoying Ben Stiller-looking public intellectual of the modern era?

http://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1274184541p5/16593.jpg

Even when I was a die-hard atheist I thought he was annoying as hell.

[DeruIsLove]

you trying to argue that someone suffering more somehow negates the suffering of others.

[Malice_Mizer]

1. Perspective and context
2. Know your roots

[DeruIsLove]

Mentioning the Sudanese girl is funny, considering how sensationalized it became because one precious Christian was going to be killed, yet the thousands of other infidels (mostly atheists/agnostics and homosexuals) who are executed every year in that country don't even get a mention. Fuck that.

[Malice_Mizer]

you trying to argue that someone suffering more somehow negates the suffering of others.

[Supreme]

Religion is a sham.

Believe in God or don't.

In this existence our beliefs are insignificant. And after the next age of reclamation (as it has happened before) there will be some other entity to believe in...

And no one will care.

[DeruIsLove]

you trying to argue that someone suffering more somehow negates the suffering of others.

No you troll. I'm done responding to you for now.

[Malice_Mizer]

Why does existence exist rather than not exist?

[DeruIsLove]

Religion is a sham.

Believe in God or don't.

In this existence our beliefs are insignificant. And after the next age of reclamation (as it has happened before) there will be some other entity to believe in...

And no one will care.

It's happened at least twice before. I'm still amazed at the at the idea of the Forerunners and I can't even imagine the level of sophistication of the ones they worshipped (the Precursors).

[Supreme]

It's happened at least twice before. I'm still amazed at the at the idea of the Forerunners and I can't even imagine the level of sophistication of the ones they worshipped (the Precursors).

Somethings to ponder.

If you do not believe in God will you go to hell?

What about the dinosaurs? The trilobites?

When it is Sunday on earth is it Sunday everywhere in the universe? How do you know?

It is the analogy of scale...

You are asked to take a leap of faith and believe even though you do not know what is on the other side of the curtain...

Sounds like shenanigans to me.

[Supreme]

Why does existence exist rather than not exist?

Existence is something mankind has created. Like Time there is no way for us to know if existence or time is relevant or even "exists" everywhere in the universe.

We can make universal assumptions and guesses. But in the end we are left with our observations and empirical data to draw conclusions.

While we do, someone has the arrogance to state "Laws" of science. Yet cannot prove these laws to be any more absolute than the statement "Nothing is absolute".

Thus we must have a foundation of beliefs and faiths. The difference is that the ulterior motives of man has perverted the faith in "God" and now the ignorance of our species lends us 30 mins of entertainment on the evening news.

[Supreme]

Yes i am bored...triple post.

[Malice_Mizer]

1. No, because God's infinite and transcendent love doesn't have room for your juvenile conception of hell. In fact, the Catholic Church cannot and will not affirm that any soul is "in hell."

2. Dinosaurs and trilobites are not fallen objects of creation endowed with free will, so they're unaffected by the redemption narrative

3. The Sabbath (though you're actually speaking of the Lord's Day, which is not the Sabbath but just a day of communal worship) was created for man to focus squarely on God, not the other way around. So no, it is a purely terrestrial conception, just like time itself.

DUHHHHHHHHH

[Ahldagor]

kags trying to sound intelligent again and becoming worse than what he fights

[Pokesan]

i'm sad that god doesn't exist

i'm also sad that autism does exist

ironically praying for you deru

[Supreme]

1. No, because God's infinite and transcendent love doesn't have room for your juvenile conception of hell.

Hard to argue with a statement that is a contradiction.

2. Dinosaurs and trilobites are not fallen objects of creation endowed with free will, so they're unaffected by the redemption narrative

And you know this how? Because you lived during the age of Dinosaurs?

3. The Sabbath (though you're actually speaking of the Lord's Day, which is not the Sabbath but just a day of communal worship) was created for man to focus squarely on God, not the other way around. So no, it is a purely terrestrial conception, just like time itself.



So the day was created for man or man created the day for God? If you state that the day was created for Man then you are assuming it is the "Lord's Day" everywhere in the universe. Yet you do not know it is because you have no empirical proof.

Yet if you say "man created the day" for God, then this is an creation of man and not divine in itself.

Another contradiction.

[mtb tripper]

you will never be free mwahahahah

[Doors]

Atheists are annoying fucks.

[mtb tripper]

Atheists are annoying fucks.

I think people who care about religion at all are mindless idiots who will wonder about it the rest of their life until they are dead and then nothing happens, all wasted stress for nothing. so if you are going to be religious, pick something like buddhism or hinduism or something, get some enjoyment out of it.

[Eliseus]

Well, science rests on evidence. Nonexistent entities have none. God has none, so therefor its safe to say that there probably is no god.

That said, I am a coward and therefore say I am an agnostic. There are far more intelligent people than me that could talk about the subject tho haha.

Lol

This thread is full of retards, I was hoping it stayed dead when it died, most the people now posting aren't even reading the original pages and and just repeating arguments already brought up or put to rest.

Even worse, everyone posting in this thread isn't open to any real sort of discussion. Merely just pointing out their opinions and how dumb someone else is that doesn't believe in it.

That being said, Atheist are fucking idiots.

[Eliseus]

Gays are also fucking idiots, if you want to sleep with the same sex, just say that is what you want to do, don't bring up illogical invalid arguments to try and validate wanting to fuck the same sex.

[iruinedyourday]

I thought rnf on p99 was going to give me the answers to life's greatest mystery. Isn't that why you guys started playing classic Eq too? :p

[Tasslehofp99]

this thread should just be deleted from p99 forums forever

[myriverse]

I think people who care about religion at all are mindless idiots who will wonder about it the rest of their life until they are dead and then nothing happens, all wasted stress for nothing. so if you are going to be religious, pick something like buddhism or hinduism or something, get some enjoyment out of it.
Not so sure about that last part. As a Buddhist and Atheist, I don't see it as any more enjoyable. It's primary thing is that life is about suffering and coming to terms with that. You can find enjoyment in it, but then so can Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Wiccans, Animists, Shintoists, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[Malice_Mizer]

I think people who care about religion at all are mindless idiots who will wonder about it the rest of their life until they are dead and then nothing happens, all wasted stress for nothing. so if you are going to be religious, pick something like buddhism or hinduism or something, get some enjoyment out of it.

See: Pascal's Wager

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)."

You gotta serve somebody, buddy! Either your impermanent, limited sensory experience of reality, or the very Cause and essence of reality itself. Either your own "being" or the very underlying nature of "To Be."

[fadetree]

Atheists and true believers are exactly the same. The only sensible position from an evidence standpoint is agnosticism.

[Dragonsblood1987]

The only sensible position from an evidence standpoint is agnosticism.

truth

[Malice_Mizer]

Atheists and true believers are exactly the same. The only sensible position from an evidence standpoint is agnosticism.

Depends on several factors. Is your only goal in philosophy to acquire empirical, physical evidence? Are you receptive to intuition or religious experiences as informing your view of material existence? Evidence is a funny thing-- not always static, and of course, by its very nature must be subjected to prejudicial, flawed human inferences and analysis.

[phacemeltar]

necro'd

if u guys cant agree on elf-sim forums, how does anyone expect the world to come to any conclusion as a whole?

hello WWIII, nice to meet you

[fadetree]

Depends on several factors. Is your only goal in philosophy to acquire empirical, physical evidence? Are you receptive to intuition or religious experiences as informing your view of material existence? Evidence is a funny thing-- not always static, and of course, by its very nature must be subjected to prejudicial, flawed human inferences and analysis.

To answer what I think your question is, yes, 'evidence' means empirical scientific evidence.

Atheist = absolutely denies the existence of a God. No evidence in play. Note that lack of positive evidence is not negative evidence.

True believer = absolutely confirms the existence of a God. Also no evidence in play.

Neither side is aware that they are identical in making unsupported absolute claims.

As a side note, if your goal is to acquire evidence, then you are engaged in science, not philosophy.

I am a christian. Why? Because I want to be. I don't like the world if christianity isn't true. Do I need proof? Nope.

[Dragonsblood1987]

I am a christian. Why? Because I want to be. I don't like the world if christianity isn't true. Do I need proof? Nope.

absolutely not being an asshole here, but whats your reason for holding that belief? is it a fear of death and an inability to cope with possible non existence? is it the comfort of believing that your life is in another's hands, allowing you to not worry as much about what happens? i dont understand why you wouldnt like the world if christianity isnt the right religion. all that means is that god is responsible for all the terrible shit in reality.

[fadetree]

Also not trying to be an asshole, but I simply don't care whether you understand it or not. Actually, I don't necessarily understand it either, and I don't care about that. I was clear in what I said.

[Dragonsblood1987]

Also not trying to be an asshole, but I simply don't care whether you understand it or not. Actually, I don't necessarily understand it either, and I don't care about that. I was clear in what I said.

im trying to understand the logic behind it, because i find peoples various reasoning interesting. ive studied pretty much every religion there is for that reason

[Malice_Mizer]

As a side note, if your goal is to acquire evidence, then you are engaged in science, not philosophy.


That's kind of the point. People who demand physical evidence for metaphysical inquiries are missing the point entirely. As a subjective experiencer of physical reality, you necessarily cannot objectively observe it, contrary to what many materialists believe. You can't be neutral on a moving train. Demanding physical evidence for the existence of God is like demanding physical evidence that you exist. Inferences and intuitive knowledge are an entirely different beast.

[fadetree]

I'll add that I wasn't talking about religion and which one is 'right'. I don't think God gives much of a crap about religion. Christianity itself doesn't make a very good religion, in the sense that religion, any religion, is about making deals with your deity, trading correct behavior for not being fried in the afterlife or getting beaten up by current life. Christianity has no such deals to make.

[fadetree]

That's kind of the point. People who demand physical evidence for metaphysical inquiries are missing the point entirely. As a subjective experiencer of physical reality, you necessarily cannot objectively observe it, contrary to what many materialists believe. You can't be neutral on a moving train. Demanding physical evidence for the existence of God is like demanding physical evidence that you exist. Inferences and intuitive knowledge are an entirely different beast.

Yes, I agree with you. The whole idea that you could, even in principle, prove or disprove the existence of God is silly. Thats why I said agnosticism is the only reasonable standpoint.

[Malice_Mizer]

im trying to understand the logic behind it, because i find peoples various reasoning interesting. ive studied pretty much every religion there is for that reason

That's interesting, because your questions are honestly pretty juvenile. If you believe that people adhere to religious systems and a belief in God simply to comfort themselves and avoid any liability for their own lives, then I don't think you've dug deep enough into the nature of human spirituality. Even the way you frame the questions betrays a shallow attempt at understanding.

For example the problem of pain is explicitly addressed and concretely satisfied in any orthodox Christian theology: God allows evil to exist to bring about a greater good, i.e. we are unable to view the entire "puzzle," and experience only a small piece, our own piece, of creation. Therefore, any judgment you make about the fairness or unfairness of existence is itself unfair, because you have no viewed existence as a completed whole. It's a teleological understanding of existence that is honestly supported now by science (now that science has abandoned the static-universe theory it slavish held onto until 50 years ago), which says that our universe has a beginning and will one day end. Until then-- until you're able to view creation as the mind that conceived it-- any analysis you make is flawed and incomplete.

[fadetree]

ooh someone's been reading Mr. Lewis.

[Vyal]

That's interesting, because your questions are honestly pretty juvenile. If you believe that people adhere to religious systems and a belief in God simply to comfort themselves and avoid any liability for their own lives, then I don't think you've dug deep enough into the nature of human spirituality. Even the way you frame the questions betrays a shallow attempt at understanding.

[fadetree]

Cmon, he just cited some of the standard arguments. You might think them juvenile but they are arguments that still need to be dealt with...LOTS of people get hung up on them and they aren't all idiots, those are legitimate questions. I did not find him to be a jerk about it at all..unless I missed something earlier in the thread, which I didn't read trololololol

[Archalen]

That's interesting, because your questions are honestly pretty juvenile. If you believe that people adhere to religious systems and a belief in God simply to comfort themselves and avoid any liability for their own lives, then I don't think you've dug deep enough into the nature of human spirituality. Even the way you frame the questions betrays a shallow attempt at understanding.

For example the problem of pain is explicitly addressed and concretely satisfied in any orthodox Christian theology: God allows evil to exist to bring about a greater good, i.e. we are unable to view the entire "puzzle," and experience only a small piece, our own piece, of creation. Therefore, any judgment you make about the fairness or unfairness of existence is itself unfair, because you have no viewed existence as a completed whole. It's a teleological understanding of existence that is honestly supported now by science (now that science has abandoned the static-universe theory it slavish held onto until 50 years ago), which says that our universe has a beginning and will one day end. Until then-- until you're able to view creation as the mind that conceived it-- any analysis you make is flawed and incomplete.

Existence absolutely is a puzzle, which is why when people ask me about the existence of God, I say "I don't know."

[Dragonsblood1987]

That's interesting, because your questions are honestly pretty juvenile. If you believe that people adhere to religious systems and a belief in God simply to comfort themselves and avoid any liability for their own lives, then I don't think you've dug deep enough into the nature of human spirituality. Even the way you frame the questions betrays a shallow attempt at understanding.

For example the problem of pain is explicitly addressed and concretely satisfied in any orthodox Christian theology: God allows evil to exist to bring about a greater good, i.e. we are unable to view the entire "puzzle," and experience only a small piece, our own piece, of creation. Therefore, any judgment you make about the fairness or unfairness of existence is itself unfair, because you have no viewed existence as a completed whole. It's a teleological understanding of existence that is honestly supported now by science (now that science has abandoned the static-universe theory it slavish held onto until 50 years ago), which says that our universe has a beginning and will one day end. Until then-- until you're able to view creation as the mind that conceived it-- any analysis you make is flawed and incomplete.

you say that asking if religion is followed for the sake of comfort, what is the ultimate goal of being spiritual? that isnt really a question with an objective answer. i wouldnt really say that judeo-christian religions are very spiritual, especially not in comparison with eastern religions.

eastern religions tend to explore spirituality as a means of achieving enlightenment. you are a soul, you have always been, just not always in your current physical form. everything that reality encompasses is bound in some way, thus making everything in it small parts of a whole. if you do good, you'll amass positive energy and go up a rung in the ladder when your physical form dies, being reborn a little bit closer to true enlightenment. or at least you'll have more means of becoming enlightened at your disposal. life and death are like the breath of the universe, theres a balance that is maintained, we're all part of a greater consciousness.



judeo christian religions however, are a bit more linear and black and white (though theyre the most frequently openly interpreted). god said "let there be light". bam. we're here. now that youre here, youve been gifted with free will. what you do with it is your choice, but if you dont do what god wants, he, the unconditionally loving creator, will punish you for ever with physical torture (although some offshoots of the big three have varying amounts of penance; its not always forever). if youre good and dont use the free will god gave you, you'll go to heaven, or some plane of positive energy to put it another way. in heaven, theres no pain, no hunger, everyones always happy you get to see dead loved ones again ect. if youre bad, youre barred from heaven, damned to hell or some negative plane where your only company is some chief embodiment of evil, and all the asshole that have ever existed and died before you.



it seems to me like spirituality doesnt play enough of a roll in christianity to even mention it, hence why i asked what i did.

[Dragonsblood1987]

oops. first sentence. "you say that asking if religion is followed for the sake of comfort is juvenile"*

FTFM

[DeruIsLove]

You forgot the guilt trip. Abrahamic religions love their martyrs.

[mtb tripper]

ooh someone's been reading Mr. Lewis.

[mtb tripper]

either that or wikipedia

[Champion_Standing]

either that or wikipedia

Not wikipedia, he reads the links to the sources.

[Malice_Mizer]

Again, I'm sorry, but the way you've described Christianity is almost 100% inaccurate and a modern whitewash of its essence.

You also neglect the creation stories of other "spiritual" religions. Many Hindus say that the "universe" began as water/was formed through the creative vibration/etc. Brahma this or that, whoosh, everything is created including other celestial beings.

Christianity is much more similar to transcendental Hinduism and other highly philosophical spiritual systems than you give it credit for. Most Orthodox Christian denominations (i.e. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) believe that most of Genesis is a highly metaphorical spiritual analogy. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church strictly adheres to the idea that there are a series of different ways to read different parts of the Bible based on the apostolic tradition. Not everything is literal. A lot of it is spiritual allegory, which is important for you to recognize. For instance, most Hindus believe that there exists, beyond all celestial beings and personalized incarnations of "God," an all-pervasive, unconditional reality that we call God, within which all material existence exists. This is called Brahman. It's a very cool idea, and almost identical to Spinoza's spirituality, except it was conceived of thousands of years before him in India.

Anyway, this concept is really no different than Christianity's understanding of God. It is nuanced. It is complex, and more than willing to admit the inherent Mystery of spirituality-- accepting our own inability to even conceive of such a concept as infinity or eternity or God. In Exodus, when Moses asks Yahweh what his name is to be able to tell the others who is calling them, Yahweh responds, "I am He Who Is." From the Catholic Catechism: "This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say."

Since nothing within material existence holds within itself the very reason for its existence (that is, you have to appeal to a higher reason for something's existence, such as a flower from a seed from carbon from stars from the big bang from etc.), there must be something whose very nature it is To Be-- To Exist. This is often referred to as the "Argument from Contingency" by Saint Thomas Aquinas, or the "Unmoved Mover," or the "Uncaused First Cause." It's a basic philosophical problem that Christianity deals with in a very spiritual way. It's not "black and white." It's not, "He's a big dude with a white beard in the sky yelling shit at you." That is how modern society views Christianity and it is simply flawed.

[Malice_Mizer]

Not wikipedia, he reads the links to the sources.

It's called reading a fucking book and not dropping out of high school.

[fadetree]

you say that asking if religion is followed for the sake of comfort, what is the ultimate goal of being spiritual? that isnt really a question with an objective answer. i wouldnt really say that judeo-christian religions are very spiritual, especially not in comparison with eastern religions.

eastern religions tend to explore spirituality as a means of achieving enlightenment. you are a soul, you have always been, just not always in your current physical form. everything that reality encompasses is bound in some way, thus making everything in it small parts of a whole. if you do good, you'll amass positive energy and go up a rung in the ladder when your physical form dies, being reborn a little bit closer to true enlightenment. or at least you'll have more means of becoming enlightened at your disposal. life and death are like the breath of the universe, theres a balance that is maintained, we're all part of a greater consciousness.



judeo christian religions however, are a bit more linear and black and white (though theyre the most frequently openly interpreted). god said "let there be light". bam. we're here. now that youre here, youve been gifted with free will. what you do with it is your choice, but if you dont do what god wants, he, the unconditionally loving creator, will punish you for ever with physical torture (although some offshoots of the big three have varying amounts of penance; its not always forever). if youre good and dont use the free will god gave you, you'll go to heaven, or some plane of positive energy to put it another way. in heaven, theres no pain, no hunger, everyones always happy you get to see dead loved ones again ect. if youre bad, youre barred from heaven, damned to hell or some negative plane where your only company is some chief embodiment of evil, and all the asshole that have ever existed and died before you.



it seems to me like spirituality doesnt play enough of a roll in christianity to even mention it, hence why i asked what i did.

I'm interested in what you think spirituality is. Do you think its some kind of learning or enlightenment process? The literal meaning of the word, of course, is 'dealing with spirits'.

You mention a bunch of stuff about Christian 'religion'. Its accurate enough according to popular opinion, but doesn't really have anything to do with actual Christianity. If you are a Christian, you are not bound by the old testament. You are not, in fact, bound by anything. Let me give you an alternate take :

In my christian circles, Sin is not a series of bad actions that God doesn't like, and Righteousness is not a bunch actions that he likes. Sin is an environment, and refers to the the fact that you have free will. The meaning of word for 'Sin' is basically 'apart from God', as in He's not directing everything all the time, which is another way of saying we have free will. He's not shooting down airplanes full of babies, we are.

Righteousness is not doing a bunch of good actions till you 'get good enough'. There is no good enough. The most super duper wonderful human you ever met is exactly as sinful as anyone else. The most despicable murderer is exactly as Righteous as anyone else. Hitler and Mother Teresa? Exactly the same from a sin standpoint. Those public Christians talking about how sinful one kind of person is over another? They are seriously mistaken.

Hell and eternal damnation? One way to look at it is that you may simply not recognise what you are being offered in the afterlife, and thus fail to accept it. Nobody sends you to hell, you just don't see heaven when it's in front of you. That applies to this life as well, I think. I personally do not buy the hellfire idea...JC mentioned some things in that regard but they were mostly metaphors for a 'really bad thing', which indeed it would be if heaven existed but you couldn't recognise it.

To me, Christianity means that
a) I believe in the historical Jesus. This is not unreasonable.
b) I think he was God's "son", avatar, representative, etc for us humans. This is unreasonable.
c) I accept the free gift that God extends through him. This is the only way to righteousness. Reasonable given (b) is accepted.
d) I try to be as much like him in my daily life as I can. Reasonable, even if you don't buy the God part he had some damn good suggestions.

Most of the rules that people go on and on about are really just Him trying to give us some clues about how to be happy. Breaking them is not any more sinful that not breaking them, its just usually stupid for practical reasons.

[Champion_Standing]

It's called reading a fucking book and not dropping out of high school.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120309043943/gyropedia/images/9/91/1327974741374.png

[fadetree]

Oh also :

I don't think all the native indians and islanders zulu warriors from 1500 and what not who have never heard the name 'Jesus' are all going to hell. I believe God will treat us all fairly no matter who we are and what we've experienced. Notice I said 'fairly'...which if you think about it is kind of scary.

[fadetree]

And that big giant post that Malice_Mizer made? I agree with almost completely. I just tried to say it more simply and with less rustling.

And with that I'M OUT

[fadetree]

you say that asking if religion is followed for the sake of comfort, what is the ultimate goal of being spiritual? that isnt really a question with an objective answer. i wouldnt really say that judeo-christian religions are very spiritual, especially not in comparison with eastern religions.

eastern religions tend to explore spirituality as a means of achieving enlightenment. you are a soul, you have always been, just not always in your current physical form. everything that reality encompasses is bound in some way, thus making everything in it small parts of a whole. if you do good, you'll amass positive energy and go up a rung in the ladder when your physical form dies, being reborn a little bit closer to true enlightenment. or at least you'll have more means of becoming enlightened at your disposal. life and death are like the breath of the universe, theres a balance that is maintained, we're all part of a greater consciousness.



judeo christian religions however, are a bit more linear and black and white (though theyre the most frequently openly interpreted). god said "let there be light". bam. we're here. now that youre here, youve been gifted with free will. what you do with it is your choice, but if you dont do what god wants, he, the unconditionally loving creator, will punish you for ever with physical torture (although some offshoots of the big three have varying amounts of penance; its not always forever). if youre good and dont use the free will god gave you, you'll go to heaven, or some plane of positive energy to put it another way. in heaven, theres no pain, no hunger, everyones always happy you get to see dead loved ones again ect. if youre bad, youre barred from heaven, damned to hell or some negative plane where your only company is some chief embodiment of evil, and all the asshole that have ever existed and died before you.



it seems to me like spirituality doesnt play enough of a roll in christianity to even mention it, hence why i asked what i did.

I'm interested in what you think spirituality is. Do you think its some kind of learning or enlightenment process? The literal meaning of the word, of course, is 'dealing with spirits'.

You mention a bunch of stuff about Christian 'religion'. Its accurate enough according to popular opinion, but doesn't really have anything to do with actual Christianity. If you are a Christian, you are not bound by the old testament. You are not, in fact, bound by anything. Let me give you an alternate take :

In my christian circles, Sin is not a series of bad actions that God doesn't like, and Righteousness is not a bunch actions that he likes. Sin is an environment, and refers to the the fact that you have free will. The meaning of word for 'Sin' is basically 'apart from God', as in He's not directing everything all the time, which is another way of saying we have free will. He's not shooting down airplanes full of babies, we are.

Righteousness is not doing a bunch of good actions till you 'get good enough'. There is no good enough. The most super duper wonderful human you ever met is exactly as sinful as anyone else. The most despicable murderer is exactly as Righteous as anyone else. Hitler and Mother Teresa? Exactly the same from a sin standpoint. Those public Christians talking about how sinful one kind of person is over another? They are seriously mistaken.

Hell and eternal damnation? One way to look at it is that you may simply not recognise what you are being offered in the afterlife, and thus fail to accept it. Nobody sends you to hell, you just don't see heaven when it's in front of you. That applies to this life as well, I think. I personally do not buy the hellfire idea...JC mentioned some things in that regard but they were mostly metaphors for a 'really bad thing', which indeed it would be if heaven existed but you couldn't recognise it.

To me, Christianity means that
a) I believe in the historical Jesus. This is not unreasonable.
b) I think he was God's "son", avatar, representative, etc for us humans. This is unreasonable.
c) I accept the free gift that God extends through him. This is the only way to righteousness. Reasonable given (b) is accepted.
d) I try to be as much like him in my daily life as I can. Reasonable, even if you don't buy the God part he had some damn good suggestions.

Most of the rules that people go on and on about are really just Him trying to give us some clues about how to be happy. Breaking them is not any more sinful that not breaking them, its just usually stupid for practical reasons.

[Dragonsblood1987]

To me, Christianity means that
a) I believe in the historical Jesus. This is not unreasonable.
b) I think he was God's "son", avatar, representative, etc for us humans. This is unreasonable.
c) I accept the free gift that God extends through him. This is the only way to righteousness. Reasonable given (b) is accepted.
d) I try to be as much like him in my daily life as I can. Reasonable, even if you don't buy the God part he had some damn good suggestions.



but how do you willingly look past the contradictions in the unreasonable parts? thats means that on some level you understand that it isnt real right?

[Dragonsblood1987]

and i agree. if you consider jesus just another human, yes. he had some good ideas

[iruinedyourday]

It's called reading a fucking book and not dropping out of high school.

dude you completely describe Christianity in the way YOU see it. And half the time I roll my eyes about how wrong you are from MY perspective or anyone else's.

If you you didn't you'd be living a life like Jesus and feeding the poor and certainly wouldn't be arguing with people on the internet.

Its all fucking hogwash and everyone defines it all however they please. So yall should sotp arguing about it. Say what you will about Athiests, but at least they can all agree in the same thing, there is no god, end of the conversation.

Just relax nobody is persecuting anyone here and you're not going to change anyone's opinions about religion by yelling at them about how they are wrong on the internet.

[Malice_Mizer]

but how do you willingly look past the contradictions in the unreasonable parts? thats means that on some level you understand that it isnt real right?

What contradictions? Again, if you read the Bible in the apostolic tradition, then contradictions do not exist. I hate to just say, "Read the Catechism," but that sounds like what is in order here. If you take the Bible alone, you can infer all kinds of messed up stuff. That's why every non-Protestant believes that there is both a Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that must go hand-in-hand in order to achieve any kind of spiritual enlightenment from Christianity. The Bible alone can be anything to anyone. If pick up Shakespeare without any context of his era, or any teacher to help guide your reading and explain how certain passages are to be understood, then you'd be lost and think it gibberish nonsense. And you'd be justified in thinking so.

[Packet]

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

http://media.giphy.com/media/XEdeYqzH36e5O/giphy.gif

[Malice_Mizer]

dude you completely describe Christianity in the way YOU see it. And half the time I roll my eyes about how wrong you are from MY perspective or anyone else's.

If you you didn't you'd be living a life like Jesus and feeding the poor and certainly wouldn't be arguing with people on the internet.

Its all fucking hogwash and everyone defines it all however they please. So yall should sotp arguing about it. Say what you will about Athiests, but at least they can all agree in the same thing, there is no god, end of the conversation.

Just relax nobody is persecuting anyone here and you're not going to change anyone's opinions about religion by yelling at them about how they are wrong on the internet.

Walking away > Trying to get people to stop yelling on the internet

[Dragonsblood1987]

What contradictions? Again, if you read the Bible in the apostolic tradition, then contradictions do not exist. I hate to just say, "Read the Catechism," but that sounds like what is in order here. If you take the Bible alone, you can infer all kinds of messed up stuff. That's why every non-Protestant believes that there is both a Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that must go hand-in-hand in order to achieve any kind of spiritual enlightenment from Christianity. The Bible alone can be anything to anyone. If pick up Shakespeare without any context of his era, or any teacher to help guide your reading and explain how certain passages are to be understood, then you'd be lost and think it gibberish nonsense. And you'd be justified in thinking so.

there are lots of contradictions in the bible.

[DeruIsLove]

What contradictions? Again, if you read the Bible in the apostolic tradition, then contradictions do not exist. I hate to just say, "Read the Catechism," but that sounds like what is in order here. If you take the Bible alone, you can infer all kinds of messed up stuff. That's why every non-Protestant believes that there is both a Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that must go hand-in-hand in order to achieve any kind of spiritual enlightenment from Christianity. The Bible alone can be anything to anyone. If pick up Shakespeare without any context of his era, or any teacher to help guide your reading and explain how certain passages are to be understood, then you'd be lost and think it gibberish nonsense. And you'd be justified in thinking so.

And your way of deciding how to interpret the bible is the correct way because?

[DeruIsLove]

Gotta say I laughed at Fadetree's implication that the sadistic death camp bitch queen Mother Theresa was "righteous". :p

[iruinedyourday]

Walking away > Trying to get people to stop yelling on the internet

hey everyone it just got a hell of a lot quieter on the internet!

[Malice_Mizer]

It's a hell of a lot easier to tear down a house than it is to build one, isn't it?

[Archalen]

See: Pascal's Wager

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)."

You gotta serve somebody, buddy! Either your impermanent, limited sensory experience of reality, or the very Cause and essence of reality itself. Either your own "being" or the very underlying nature of "To Be."

"There are many problems with the reasoning in Pascal's Wager, as well as the unsavoury theological assumptions it makes. Like most arguments for the existence of God, it seems more about reassuring existing believers than converting non-believers. This is because in order to convince a non-believer, a theological argument must both prove that the god it argues for is the One True God and disprove all other possibilities. People lacking a belief can see the potential for multiple gods existing, in fact an infinite number, but believers are constrained by their existing view that there is their god or no god. Only in this latter case does the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager make any sense.
In Bayesian terms, this can be stated as saying non-believers attribute uniform prior probabilities to the existence of any particular god; all equal, and all infinitesimal. Pascal's Wager alone cannot update these probabilities as the reasoning applies only to the One True God out of an infinite number of possible gods. Without any further information to whittle this down, the odds of inadvertently worshiping the wrong god is a practical certainty. Only when the probability of a particular god existing increases does Pascal's Wager become useful, i.e., if one god could be assigned even a mere 1% chance of being the One True God, Pascal's Wager would present a clear benefit. Hence for anyone constrained by a bias towards a particular god, the Wager is far more clear cut and supportive of their belief."

Look ma I can copy pasta.

[DeruIsLove]

God: "welcome to heaven"
Human: "but I'm an atheist"
God: "I have humanity the gift of free will. You used it and weren't a selfish bigot in the process."

Whatscal's Wager?

[Malice_Mizer]

But this is a discussion of whether or not God exists. Pascal's Wager is flawed, to be sure, but as a general assessment of the worth of disbelief, I think it serves its purpose.

Unconditional and eternal damnation is sketchy theology not worth much attention, anyway.

[DeruIsLove]

But this is a discussion of whether or not God exists. Pascal's Wager is flawed, to be sure, but as a general assessment of the worth of disbelief, I think it serves its purpose.

Unconditional and eternal damnation is sketchy theology not worth much attention, anyway.

Now you're getting back to the original point that you attempted to marginalize. (Most) non-believers don't disbelieve for themselves in the sense that the act of disbelieving provides any benefit. They do so because they live in a world run by those who believe in all of those contradictory things that have just been discussed whom do directly effect the non-believers. Whether it's human rights, environmental conservation (too many Christians don't care if they destroy the earth that they've been given by Godto use and abuse), education or a plethora of other real issues.

[Ravager]

Religion is idiotic. Arguing religion is idioticer. It's the same as playing a game of checkers against a 4 year old who perpetually changes the rules of the game so they can win.

People are too emotionally invested in their dumb beliefs to even acknowledge they're being scammed. Kinda the same deal with homeopathy.

You can't be swayed, but I'll lay it out once anyway: There is no god. There is no afterlife. When you die, that's it. It's the same as it was before you were born; remember those days? This is all the time you get so live it up.

[Dragonsblood1987]

idioticer

[DeruIsLove]

Even homeopathy has a better success rate than prayer. :p

[Ravager]

Even homeopathy has a better success rate than prayer. :p

I'd wager it's the same. A placebo is a placebo, unless the ailment was caused by dehydration, then homeopathy edges out prayer.

[DeruIsLove]

I'd wager it's the same. A placebo is a placebo, unless the ailment was caused by dehydration, then homeopathy edges out prayer.

Depends on what you call chiropractic care which is the only reliable treatment-therapy for debilitating scoliosis.

[Eliseus]

Religion is idiotic. Arguing religion is idioticer. It's the same as playing a game of checkers against a 4 year old who perpetually changes the rules of the game so they can win.

People are too emotionally invested in their dumb beliefs to even acknowledge they're being scammed. Kinda the same deal with homeopathy.

You can't be swayed, but I'll lay it out once anyway: There is no god. There is no afterlife. When you die, that's it. It's the same as it was before you were born; remember those days? This is all the time you get so live it up.

You know this how? The hypocrisy is strong in your post. At least not try to make yourself look like a tool when trying to persuade people on your own idiocy. Posts like this are the reason majority of people think Atheists are some of the most annoying people on the planet.

[iruinedyourday]

You know this how? The hypocrisy is strong in your post. At least not try to make yourself look like a tool when trying to persuade people on your own idiocy. Posts like this are the reason majority of people think Atheists are some of the most annoying people on the planet.

Everyones the most annoying person on the planet.

[Eliseus]

Everyones the most annoying person on the planet.

youruinedmyday

[Troxx]

-theists are gullible
-militant atheists dicks
-agnostics are noncommittal

I ... however ... am pure, unadulterated awesomesauce.

PS: I also happen to be an atheist

Fuck religion.

[Ravager]

You know this how? The hypocrisy is strong in your post. At least not try to make yourself look like a tool when trying to persuade people on your own idiocy. Posts like this are the reason majority of people think Atheists are some of the most annoying people on the planet.

You're angry. Anger is an emotion, emotions are caused by thoughts and nothing else. I said the belief was idiotic, you thought badly of it, so you feel badly and called me a name. You could have just as easily been indifferent or, in another mindset, found it amusing. But you went with anger because you thought what I said was a bad thing. I bring this up, because the idea of god and religion are just thoughts. There is no physical proof, no substance. It is all purely a product of the mind. People say they know it's true, because they feel it. Since emotions are just a product of thoughts and nothing else, it proves nothing. How many battered women stay with their husbands because they feel deep down inside that he's a good man who would never hurt her? It's idiotic to trust feelings over facts.

Here's a fact: There was a time when you weren't alive. Not being alive is as good as being dead. You had no mind then. When you die and your mind rots, or if you're cremated, you'll have no mind then. And with what will you be sentient? A soul? A soul is nothing more than a thought whose only proof of existence is an emotion. The facts are if there is no mind then there are no thoughts and this can be demonstrated in a lab.

I won't argue anymore, because it's idioticer and I shouldn't have been baited by this thread in the first place. Just know that I'm right and you're wrong, unless you can find proof positive of your position beyond human emotions that are purely the result if illogical thinking. (That is, assuming you are indeed trying to defend some idiotic belief.) We're all going to know the fact of the matter in due course, it's just too bad all of these religious nuts won't have a mind to appreciate the fact when it comes, cuz there's no thinking when you're dead.

[phacemeltar]

your perspective of right and wrong is human, and anything that would be considered a god would be utterly out of your understanding; i want to know the atheist stance on sun-worshipers. sounds entertaining.

[Malice_Mizer]

I won't argue anymore, because it's idioticer and I shouldn't have been baited by this thread in the first place. Just know that I'm right and you're wrong, unless you can find proof positive of your position beyond human emotions that are purely the result if illogical thinking. (That is, assuming you are indeed trying to defend some idiotic belief.) We're all going to know the fact of the matter in due course, it's just too bad all of these religious nuts won't have a mind to appreciate the fact when it comes, cuz there's no thinking when you're dead.

Wow. That entire post was just . . Wow.

Which is more illogical, belief that the universe was created from a creator, or belief that the universe was birthed from the total void of nonexistence, in which case the very concept of "Why does something exist rather than not exist" remains entirely unacknowledged and ignored.

Your own opinion on the issue is full of illogical holes, as well: fundamental philosophical questions not addressed or glossed-over, nihilistic materialism. The only difference is that I appeal to something beyond my own puny human mind, which is constrained by the shackles of time and space and physical cognition, and you believe that your mind is capable of understanding the very nature of reality, something you subjectively experience and therefore are entirely unqualified to objectively analyze. Yet you think you're capable of doing just that, and that's where you fail.

[Daldolma]

long story short, ravager is a simpleton who thinks he's got a handle on an unanswerable question

[Frieza_Prexus]

long story short, ravager is a simpleton who thinks he's got a handle on an unanswerable question

http://i.imgur.com/fcY8UKF.png

[DeruIsLove]

i want to know the atheist stance on sun-worshipers. sounds entertaining.
The same stance that they would have on any other group that worships an inanimate object. The sun exists, there's no evidence that it's not a god, ergo it's not plausible to consider the sun a god.

Is your post supposed to be some kind of hook/catch or something? This type of question comes up all the time and is one of the easier ones.
Which is more illogical, belief that the universe was created from a creator, or belief that the universe was birthed from the total void of nonexistence, in which case the very concept of "Why does something exist rather than not exist" remains entirely unacknowledged and ignored.

In most cases I'm now of a fan of the 'why' of things as opposed to the 'how'. In the case of the universe it's amazing enough that such a vast expanse of wonder and beauty exists in the first place. If that's not good enough for you and you need something deeper, that's a personal problem.

[DeruIsLove]

more of a fan of*

[Mblake81]

The same stance that they would have on any other group that worships an inanimate object. The sun exists, there's no evidence that it's not a god, ergo it's not plausible to consider the sun a god.

Could be nothing more than when the sun comes up I am warmed, it grows plants which help animals which help me sort of thing.

Daydreaming vs Cold hard world

If you have time to daydream doesn't that mean you have time to work? idle hands

[DeruIsLove]

http://i.imgur.com/plEajJX.jpg

[Malice_Mizer]

http://i.imgur.com/plEajJX.jpg

Stupid pop science crap. What he said is obviously true, but does every scientist agree on everything when data rolls in? Data, and physical evidence in general, must first be interpreted by the human mind in order to mean anything in the first place. If you think the human mind is capable of purely objective consideration, can be trained to become immune to its subconscious, and therefore is a static organ that is identical between individuals, then you're sorely mistaken.

Again: what we're talking about is philosophy. Metaphysics. Ontology. These things are at their very core beyond the physical, which is where science and evidence exist. These fields of inquiry seek to, as you said, answer one question while science attempts to answer another. I believe you said, "I'm more interested in the why than the how." Science deals with one, philosophical inquiry with the other.

If you think that there is an end to science, and that one day every single possible question can be answered, you need to expand your mind a bit and consider the very structures that allow for science to be a thing. This is like you being content with simply understanding everything about a videogame without questioning why the game exists in the first place, or the computer that the game runs on, or who made the game to begin with. All you're concerned with is the dull, dead, physical laws that govern the game because that's all you can sense and feel. You disregard the inherently flawed methods with which you discern physical existence, that is, your senses. If your senses are capable of feeding your rational mind a mirage, or a misapprehension, how can you then in turn believe that your senses are infallible methods of gathering data?

You make human reason your God. And for that, I am sorry.

[iruinedyourday]

Stupid pop science crap. What he said is obviously true, but does every scientist agree on everything when data rolls in? Data, and physical evidence in general, must first be interpreted by the human mind in order to mean anything in the first place. If you think the human mind is capable of purely objective consideration, can be trained to become immune to its subconscious, and therefore is a static organ that is identical between individuals, then you're sorely mistaken.

Again: what we're talking about is philosophy. Metaphysics. Ontology. These things are at their very core beyond the physical, which is where science and evidence exist. These fields of inquiry seek to, as you said, answer one question while science attempts to answer another. I believe you said, "I'm more interested in the why than the how." Science deals with one, philosophical inquiry with the other.

If you think that there is an end to science, and that one day every single possible question can be answered, you need to expand your mind a bit and consider the very structures that allow for science to be a thing. This is like you being content with simply understanding everything about a videogame without questioning why the game exists in the first place, or the computer that the game runs on, or who made the game to begin with. All you're concerned with is the dull, dead, physical laws that govern the game because that's all you can sense and feel. You disregard the inherently flawed methods with which you discern physical existence, that is, your senses. If your senses are capable of feeding your rational mind a mirage, or a misapprehension, how can you then in turn believe that your senses are infallible methods of gathering data?

You make human reason your God. And for that, I am sorry.

This is you, you dummy.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25736152/EQ/bigwords.JPG

[Malice_Mizer]

http://addictionblog.org/cherrycake/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Spiritual-healing-from-addiction2.jpg

[iruinedyourday]

:cool:http://addictionblog.org/cherrycake/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Spiritual-healing-from-addiction2.jpg

yea right, you already said you were gonna stop posting like 9 times yesterday you big dumb crybaby looser.

[Malice_Mizer]

yea right, you already said you were gonna stop posting like 9 times yesterday you big dumb crybaby looser.

y lie

[Ravager]

Wow. That entire post was just . . Wow.

Which is more illogical, belief that the universe was created from a creator, or belief that the universe was birthed from the total void of nonexistence, in which case the very concept of "Why does something exist rather than not exist" remains entirely unacknowledged and ignored.

Your own opinion on the issue is full of illogical holes, as well: fundamental philosophical questions not addressed or glossed-over, nihilistic materialism. The only difference is that I appeal to something beyond my own puny human mind, which is constrained by the shackles of time and space and physical cognition, and you believe that your mind is capable of understanding the very nature of reality, something you subjectively experience and therefore are entirely unqualified to objectively analyze. Yet you think you're capable of doing just that, and that's where you fail.

It seems you're making the same mistake. You claim to comprehend more than me by appealing to more than your puny human mind can by assuming that there must be a creator. Only you do it without evidence. "Things exist, therefore there is a god" is a bad argument when you have no proof that in order for things to exist there has to be a god.

I am not discounting a "the universe came from somewhere" hypothesis, I am discounting the notion that it came from a single intelligent source, because there's no proof of that and the nature of our universe suggests it's not necessary anyway. Read up on self organizing systems and you can see how something can happen without the need for intelligent design.

You also forget another option: The universe has and will always be. The facts suggest that time as we experience it is just another dimension to the universe, just another axis on the graph, which means time is part of the whole of the universe, there is no beginning or end, it's just another direction of it. Why would something like that need a creator to exist?

[Ravager]

long story short, ravager is a simpleton who thinks he's got a handle on an unanswerable question

We're all simpleton's in the grand scheme of it all, I just refuse to blindly accept magic as the answer to everything when all of my life's experience tells me magic doesn't exist. There are certainly things beyond our comprehension, but that doesn't mean we should make up fairy tales to explain it and then preach them as facts.

[Daldolma]

We're all simpleton's in the grand scheme of it all.

There are certainly things beyond our comprehension.

There is no god. There is no afterlife. When you die, that's it. It's the same as it was before you were born; remember those days? This is all the time you get so live it up.

do you not see the inconsistency?

[iruinedyourday]

We're all simpleton's in the grand scheme of it all, I just refuse to blindly accept magic as the answer to everything when all of my life's experience tells me magic doesn't exist. There are certainly things beyond our comprehension, but that doesn't mean we should make up fairy tales to explain it and then preach them as facts.

Yea man. Or to decide that someone is bad base based on how they intemperate their own fairy tales.. or that they like one fairy tale better than another fairy tail, simply because it was the first fairy tail that they were told when they were 2 years old.

or decide to kill in the name of someone who told that to because if they did it in the name of that persons fairy tale they would get magic rewards and if they didn't they would get much worse, for eternity.

I mean its all pretty dumb when you look it objectively.

But my mom said when I was 13 while I was acting like a know it all teenage philosopher, 'LOOK I JUST DONT WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE I HAVE TO BELIEVE MY MOTHER AND FATHER ARE JUST GONE OK'. I felt terrible and never tried to argue with her about religion again. But my mom was a good person.

Although on being a good person, she voted Yes on Prop 8 in California (Which limited a lot of peoples freedoms) because she saw a commercial on TV that said that prop 8 would directly rob the church of money (which was a blatant lie). So even good people can be easily charmed by someone selling snake oil. Which is the very reason anti-religion Atheists are outspoken about being anti religion.

I'm not calling anyone right or wrong, you're free to believe in whatever you want. But until Atheists start rounding up religious people and killing them simply because they cant figure out how to convince them that religion is bad - they have a much better track record when it comes to arguing about the Y/N existence of god.

[myriverse]

There was not a "void of nonexistence" before the Big Bang.

[Dragonsblood1987]

There was not a "void of nonexistence" before the Big Bang.
what was there?

[DeruIsLove]

what was there?

There is no way to know as the only evidence that exists is the universe's being here. Considering spacetime likely didn't exist as we know it, the most probable answer is nothing. Despite this, some speculate it was a singularity, some speculate a previous universe finishing a catastrophic big crunch.

[Malice_Mizer]

There was not a "void of nonexistence" before the Big Bang.

Alright, regardless of the fact that you seem to know what existed before the universe, the point still remains. You're simply appealing to something higher than the Big Bang which caused the Big Bang. What caused the thing that caused the Big Bang? You see how this whole "appealing to contingency" thing ultimately leads you to exactly where science leads you? An endless series of questions whose answers simply lead to more questions. I'm not bashing science. It is both useful and beautiful. But don't put all of your eggs in that basket because human rationality, our own ability to reckon existence and reality, is entirely unsuited to the task of answering many of these questions.

Go lose yourself in other esoteric theories of the multiverse, of cyclical continued existence, of a universe that self-perpetuates, etc. It all leads to the same place that you started when you asked how our own universe came into being. You're no closer to the essence and nature of reality than you were when you realized you were a sentient being in a material world.

[myriverse]

Never claimed to know what existed before the Big Bang (and I made no claim at all about the universe). That's rather the point. Neither does science.

[DeruIsLove]

Alright, regardless of the fact that you seem to know what existed before the universe, the point still remains. You're simply appealing to something higher than the Big Bang which caused the Big Bang. What caused the thing that caused the Big Bang? You see how this whole "appealing to contingency" thing ultimately leads you to exactly where science leads you? An endless series of questions whose answers simply lead to more questions. I'm not bashing science. It is both useful and beautiful. But don't put all of your eggs in that basket because human rationality, our own ability to reckon existence and reality, is entirely unsuited to the task of answering many of these questions.

Go lose yourself in other esoteric theories of the multiverse, of cyclical continued existence, of a universe that self-perpetuates, etc. It all leads to the same place that you started when you asked how our own universe came into being. You're no closer to the essence and nature of reality than you were when you realized you were a sentient being in a material world.

You're reading you deep into it and claiming that science is looking for answers in places that they are in fact not.

[Eliseus]

Wow. That entire post was just . . Wow.

Which is more illogical, belief that the universe was created from a creator, or belief that the universe was birthed from the total void of nonexistence, in which case the very concept of "Why does something exist rather than not exist" remains entirely unacknowledged and ignored.

Your own opinion on the issue is full of illogical holes, as well: fundamental philosophical questions not addressed or glossed-over, nihilistic materialism. The only difference is that I appeal to something beyond my own puny human mind, which is constrained by the shackles of time and space and physical cognition, and you believe that your mind is capable of understanding the very nature of reality, something you subjectively experience and therefore are entirely unqualified to objectively analyze. Yet you think you're capable of doing just that, and that's where you fail.

This hits the nail right on the head, also note that he says people who believe in religion use illogical thinking while science itself has said technology will advance to levels to do God like things. Fact is, Atheism is absolutely flawed way of going about life unless you for some reason really think we are the only thing to ever exist. If that is the case, then there is no hope for said person, but even then, Atheism would still be flawed because if some kind of superior being didn't exist, we would create one.

[DeruIsLove]

This hits the nail right on the head, also note that he says people who believe in religion use illogical thinking while science itself has said technology will advance to levels to do God like things. Fact is, Atheism is absolutely flawed way of going about life unless you for some reason really think we are the only thing to ever exist. If that is the case, then there is no hope for said person, but even then, Atheism would still be flawed because if some kind of superior being didn't exist, we would create one.

I don't think Atheism means what you think it means. ;)

[Eliseus]

I don't think Atheism means what you think it means. ;)

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

And that is just the first part of wikipedia, maybe people who claim to be Atheists don't know what it means.

[Eliseus]

There is a common misconception among Atheists that they are Atheist when in reality they are agnostic, but claim to be Atheist. Though I think even being agnostic is dumb, at least it is better than being an Atheist.

[Daldolma]

why are atheists cool with scientists postulating the existence of alien life forms, down to their technological capabilities and motivations, but then they freak out when religious people postulate the existence of a divine creator and his motivations?

what's the difference?

[DeruIsLove]

why are atheists cool with scientists postulating the existence of alien life forms, down to their technological capabilities and motivations, but then they freak out when religious people postulate the existence of a divine creator and his motivations?

what's the difference?

...the crusades?

[DeruIsLove]

Though I think even being agnostic is dumb.

Elaborate please. At this point I'm 50/50 if you're trolling.

[Eliseus]

why are atheists cool with scientists postulating the existence of alien life forms, down to their technological capabilities and motivations, but then they freak out when religious people postulate the existence of a divine creator and his motivations?

what's the difference?

That is basically the point I am getting at, Atheists are basically illogical hypocrites.

[DeruIsLove]

That is basically the point I am getting at, Atheists are basically illogical hypocrites.

inb4 pol pot and stalin etc, even though they were simply atheists who killed millions and not killing millions in the name of atheism. :rolleyes:

[Eliseus]

inb4 pol pot and stalin etc, even though they were simply atheists who killed millions and not killing millions in the name of atheism. :rolleyes:

wut

[Daldolma]

...the crusades?

kind of like saying you hate biology because of eugenics

and anyway, people hardly needed religion to go to war. the vast majority of wars have been fought for secular reasons

[Vyal]

Atheism is for idiots...
Yes idiots! and arguing with those idiots also is.... idiotic, so we get a whole lot of stupid....

This thread is proof.

Science is actually the key to every religion and our way to true understanding of what we all call God.

Dare we prove other dimensions?
What if one of those dimensions is what some of us call Heaven & there is no need for anything to be created there, everything just is and always was?
People can barely grasp this concept and some can't do it at all.. Atheist will say no way not possible even though science has basically already proven.

Always brings me back to some lyrics by Tool
Repugnant is the creature who would squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here....

[Eliseus]

Oh I see, because people fight in the name of a God, and not in the name of Atheists God, therefore a God must not exist because if that deity believe in did, no way war would exist?

[Daldolma]

inb4 pol pot and stalin etc, even though they were simply atheists who killed millions and not killing millions in the name of atheism. :rolleyes:

dude, what fucking difference does it make? do you think the guy getting shot in the head cares why he's getting shot?

the point is that atheists are no less murderous than religious leaders. in many cases, they are even worse. you're blaming religion when the absence of religion isn't any better

[DeruIsLove]

kind of like saying you hate biology because of eugenics

and anyway, people hardly needed religion to go to war. the vast majority of wars have been fought for secular reasons
I don't hate Eugenics. When the Eugenics wars happen we'll talk.

I disagree with your second point vehemently. An example: While the conquest of the Americas which nearly entirely wiped out all indigenous peoples was imperialistic in nature, every murder/rape/death from the first child Columbus raped to the conquest of Central/South America to the NE natives who's deaths were celebrated at thanksgiving, were all entirely 'justified' in the eyes of their murderers because savage peoples weren't holy.
Oh I see, because people fight in the name of a God, and not in the name of Atheists God, therefore a God must not exist because if that deity believe in did, no way war would exist?
Jihadism/Crusades/Conquistidors have nothing to do with whether or not a deity exists, I don't know why you are trying to blend the two into a single point. Humans are territorial by nature, we've evolved that way. Nobody is saying war wouldn't exist, however the world would very likely have a fraction of the suffering it did today if not for sky daddy (see: Dark Ages, Mother Theresa, etc.).
dude, what fucking difference does it make? do you think the guy getting shot in the head cares why he's getting shot?

the point is that atheists are no less murderous than religious leaders. in many cases, they are even worse. you're blaming religion when the absence of religion isn't any better

Now you are confusing causation with results. Or are you going to try to tell me that 10,000% more people on the planet and much more efficient methods of wiping people off the map have nothing to do with the higher death tolls in recent wars compared to the crusades.

[Daldolma]

I disagree with your second point vehemently. An example: While the conquest of the Americas which nearly entirely wiped out all indigenous peoples was imperialistic in nature, every murder/rape/death from the first child Columbus raped to the conquest of Central/South America to the NE natives who's deaths were celebrated at thanksgiving, were all entirely 'justified' in the eyes of their murderers because savage peoples weren't holy.

look to your own quote below to see why this is a hollow argument. there's no causation. like you said, the conquest and murders were imperialistic in nature. why are you so preoccupied with the justifications that were offered? do you think the americas wouldn't have been taken by conquest without religious justification? there's always some justification. nobody ever just says "we're committing atrocities, deal with it". we've seen too many of these horrors committed by secular governments to seriously believe religion is the driving force. hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot -- they did the same things without any religious justifications


Now you are confusing causation with results. Or are you going to try to tell me that 10,000% more people on the planet and much more efficient methods of wiping people off the map have nothing to do with the higher death tolls in recent wars compared to the crusades.

i'm not even referencing numbers. i would say nazi germany was more murderous in its scope and dedication than even the crusaders or the spanish inquisition. at least with the crusaders and inquisitors, there was a non-murderous goal. the crusaders wanted the holy land. the inquisitors wanted to defend spain's catholic character. nazi germany wanted to kill all the jews, gypsies, handicapped, and homosexuals. that was the goal.

but like i said, the point is just that they're no less murderous. maybe you don't think they were worse, but there's no way you could say hitler/stalin/pol pot were better than anyone

[iruinedyourday]

Im just curious what outlooks on anything does this forum this is non idiotic? Can someone make a poll?

[Eliseus]

I don't hate Eugenics. When the Eugenics wars happen we'll talk.

I disagree with your second point vehemently. An example: While the conquest of the Americas which nearly entirely wiped out all indigenous peoples was imperialistic in nature, every murder/rape/death from the first child Columbus raped to the conquest of Central/South America to the NE natives who's deaths were celebrated at thanksgiving, were all entirely 'justified' in the eyes of their murderers because savage peoples weren't holy.

Jihadism/Crusades/Conquistidors have nothing to do with whether or not a deity exists, I don't know why you are trying to blend the two into a single point. Humans are territorial by nature, we've evolved that way. Nobody is saying war wouldn't exist, however the world would very likely have a fraction of the suffering it did today if not for sky daddy (see: Dark Ages, Mother Theresa, etc.).


Now you are confusing causation with results. Or are you going to try to tell me that 10,000% more people on the planet and much more efficient methods of wiping people off the map have nothing to do with the higher death tolls in recent wars compared to the crusades.

Nothing you are saying even has anything to do with a God existing or not and why Aeghiests are so annoying in modern day society. Either I am completely not understanding your point (which is probable) or you are trying to deflect.

[iruinedyourday]

Aeghiests

now there's such things as Aeghiests? theirs too many beliefs in this world...

[Rhambuk]

I disagree

[Gaffin 7.0]

there is no god, bible is bullshit

[iruinedyourday]

Im going to convert to mormancolisam, its like Mormonism but its more melancholy.

[Eliseus]

now there's such things as Aeghiests? theirs too many beliefs in this world...

My phone for some reason auto corrected to that lawls

[DeruIsLove]

look to your own quote below to see why this is a hollow argument. there's no causation. like you said, the conquest and murders were imperialistic in nature. why are you so preoccupied with the justifications that were offered? do you think the americas wouldn't have been taken by conquest without religious justification? there's always some justification. nobody ever just says "we're committing atrocities, deal with it". we've seen too many of these horrors committed by secular governments to seriously believe religion is the driving force. hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot -- they did the same things without any religious justifications


inb4 pol pot and stalin etc, even though they were simply atheists who killed millions and not killing millions in the name of atheism. :rolleyes:

[DeruIsLove]

Nothing you are saying even has anything to do with a God existing or not and why Aeghiests are so annoying in modern day society. Either I am completely not understanding your point (which is probable) or you are trying to deflect.

You brought up the point of being "more murderous". I responded. :)

[Daldolma]

once again, why does the justification matter? why can't you ever make a coherent argument?

if you want to blame religion for mass murder committed by governments, you need to grapple with the fact that areligious governments also commit mass murders of equal or greater proportions

the fact that areligious governments don't justify their murders in the name of irreligion is neither here nor there. the issue is the actual commission of mass murder, not the justification. if a religious government and an areligious government are going to commit the same exact atrocities, what possible difference does the associated rhetoric make? it's window dressing

[Pokesan]

what's the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist?

autism

I MAKE JOKE ENJOY

[DeruIsLove]

if a religious government and an areligious government are going to commit the same exact atrocities, what possible difference does the associated rhetoric make? it's window dressing

Like the eugenics wars, when this happens, we can talk.

[Glenzig]

I'm interested to hear what everyone's thoughts on population control are.

[DeruIsLove]

I'm interested to hear what everyone's thoughts on population control are.

What do you think is happening right now in the middle east and in Ukraine? Instead of spending money to kill people they've found a really easy way to profit from it.

Gun-free zones work wonders too.

[Whirled]

https://www.groominglounge.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/birth-control-effectiveness2.jpg

[DeruIsLove]

You forgot fedoras.

[Daldolma]

Like the eugenics wars, when this happens, we can talk.

it already has happened. areligious governments have murdered, tortured, starved, and ethnically cleansed on similar or greater scales than religious governments. there's no crime attributable to the crusaders that is not equally attributable to the nazis. religion has never been a necessary or sufficient component of mass murder

[DeruIsLove]

it already has happened. areligious governments have murdered, tortured, starved, and ethnically cleansed on similar or greater scales than religious governments. there's no crime attributable to the crusaders that is not equally attributable to the nazis. religion has never been a necessary or sufficient component of mass murder

If you are actually implying that WWII began exclusively because the Germans wanted to exterminate the Jews, you are about as misinformed about history as that guy who went on national television last week and said The Trail of Tears never happened.

[Mblake81]

http://i1358.photobucket.com/albums/q777/Mblake1981/hghghg/giphy_zps397dc9f2.gif

[Daldolma]

If you are actually implying that WWII began exclusively because the Germans wanted to exterminate the Jews, you are about as misinformed about history as that guy who went on national television last week and said The Trail of Tears never happened.

i'm not implying anything. i'm saying exactly what i said, in as many words as i said it. the fact that you can read the quoted text and find an implication that killing jews was the "exclusive" impetus for WWII is terrifying.

again, i'll quote: "areligious governments have murdered, tortured, starved, and ethnically cleansed on similar or greater scales than religious governments. there's no crime attributable to the crusaders that is not equally attributable to the nazis. religion has never been a necessary or sufficient component of mass murder"

[Packet]

I'm agnostic simply because I cannot prove either. I think this is reasonable and if you think it's stupid, I don't care because it simply works for me. I'm not prejudice towards religious folk or atheists. I can google all of the "Who's right?" keywords but at the end of the day, theories and books written by alleged apostles are not enough for me to live by. I like sinning but I don't hurt others while I do it. Well, perhaps my loved ones but that's only because of their own convictions and beliefs.

So in the meantime, I'll continue treating people the way I prefer to be treated. If and when that moment comes that I am standing in line to be judged by the omnipotent rodent god Alshazhar, hopefully the argument of, "Sorry God, the internet made me doubt my faith in you." will hold up. If not, then there's nothing I can do about it anyways. I'd also like to point out one more thing. Let's say that Jesus was the son of god and the bible is right. Quite frankly, God has been a real dick and I'd rather hang out with Satan. Hell doesn't sound so bad once all your flesh burns off. Join the battle and fight demons as a sick-ass skeleton!

[iruinedyourday]

I'm agnostic simply because I cannot prove either. I think this is reasonable and if you think it's stupid, I don't care because it simply works for me. I'm not prejudice towards religious folk or atheists. I can google all of the "Who's right?" keywords but at the end of the day, theories and books written by alleged apostles are not enough for me to live by. I like sinning but I don't hurt others while I do it. Well, perhaps my loved ones but that's only because of their own convictions and beliefs.

So in the meantime, I'll continue treating people the way I prefer to be treated. If and when that moment comes that I am standing in line to be judged by the omnipotent rodent god Alshazhar, hopefully the argument of, "Sorry God, the internet made me doubt my faith in you." will hold up. If not, then there's nothing I can do about it anyways. I'd also like to point out one more thing. Let's say that Jesus was the son of god and the bible is right. Quite frankly, God has been a real dick and I'd rather hang out with Satan. Hell doesn't sound so bad once all your flesh burns off. Join the battle and fight demons as a sick-ass skeleton!

I like your church, Packet.

[Packet]

I like your church, Packet.


http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/266/3/6/skeletal_warrior_by_nethanielshade-d5fnf50.png

[Glenzig]

Maybe I should have worded my question differently. What is everyone's view on depopulation?

[Packet]

Maybe I should have worded my question differently. What is everyone's view on depopulation?

Leave it up to nature & war. These two are more than capable of depopulating Earth. Now, if it were a sponsored volunteer-driven game show, I'd watch it.

[iruinedyourday]

Leave it up to nature & war. These two are more than capable of depopulating Earth. Now, if it were a sponsored volunteer-driven game show, I'd watch it.

This is gona be an awesome church.

[Glenzig]

Leave it up to nature & war. These two are more than capable of depopulating Earth. Now, if it were a sponsored volunteer-driven game show, I'd watch it.

Humans left in their natural state would flourish. Even with pseudo-depopulation programs in place already the population keeps increasing. So that would leave war. Why would such a war be justified?

[Eliseus]

Maybe I should have worded my question differently. What is everyone's view on depopulation?

The Purge!

[DeruIsLove]

The Purge!

Such a terrible movie.

[Rhambuk]

Such a terrible movie.

[Aviann]

Why would such a war be justified?

Not every war that happens is justified.

[Ravager]

do you not see the inconsistency?

I do when you quote me out of context. It's okay though; it's how elections are won.

[Glenzig]

I do when you quote me out of context. It's okay though; it's how elections are won.

He actually didn't quote you out of context since you were talking about the same subject in both quotes. Cant cherry pick when you are sciency and when you aren't if you're only looking to science fir an answer to all of life's questions.

[Packet]

This is gona be an awesome church.

http://media.giphy.com/media/14cUTtBgAXn7J6/giphy.gif

Humans left in their natural state would flourish. Even with pseudo-depopulation programs in place already the population keeps increasing. So that would leave war. Why would such a war be justified?

The war would occur because our game show would end up getting canceled to make room for another season of True Blood. That alone justifies all forms of genocide.

[DeruIsLove]

http://i.imgur.com/4Nk5ZZ7.jpg

Banana man at it again!

[DeruIsLove]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/28/1317272/-Well-well-Satanists-to-use-Hobby-Lobby-to-block-pro-life-propaganda