Welcome Guest! To enable all features please try to register or login.
4 Pages<1234>
Dangers of Atheism
Options
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mystique
#51 Posted : Saturday, August 25, 2007 4:55:01 PM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
Quote:
While ways may be found to get your children to the dentist without them kicking and screaming, this may not always be the case, but getting them there nevertheless may be necessary.  (I should not have to think up these sorts of explanations for you.)


I've already refuted the dentist argument - regardless of how necessary the appointment is, there's ways to get most kids to do things without such drama. Even so - at the risk of sounding so very redundant, we're talking about an omnipotent being. You're claiming that this said omnipotent being is restricted by context - this means that you are claiming that there is a restriction on their abilities, which would mean that the being is not really omnipotent. However, if the being really is omnipotent, then the being had total control and has willingly placed humans in this situation when there were other innumerable options available.

Quote:
It is important that the universe hold the potential of danger.


Why? Give me a valid reason.

Quote:
As you say, the question is whether you can "reasonably" intervene. Or more to the point would be if you could "wisely" intervene.


I didn't say that.

Quote:
Expecting God to step in and save us from dangers is a tricky request if you also want to be free and to have self-respect.


Do you have a logical reason why freedom would have any part in this? You did just claim earlier that we had a very restricted existence. If that were the case, we are far from free. Also, why would the lack of suffering remove one's self-respect? There are people in this world who don't suffer - do you think they have no self-respect?

Quote:
Ultimately He does save us if we want to be saved, but He does not save us from all dangers and hardships, but from mortality and its limitations.  But his salvation is a long term plan of increasing happiness through personal evolution, and we are only at the very beginning of this.


This is the same assertion that you have yet to prove throughout the conversation. You said you have no proof for it, and yet you insist it to be the case.

Quote:
God is vindicated by how grateful we will one day be for the opportunity of being able to participate in the adventure of living in His universe, regardless of what has happened to us here, or how long it takes us to forgive Him for it.


You didn't like it when I claimed that, essentially, your description of god was an evil, vindictive being - and yet, you just essentially said the same thing. Is that not odd to you?

Quick question from a kind of 'what if' game:

Do you believe that there will be hardships in your vision of 'eternity' or 'heaven'?
Back to top
Mystique
#52 Posted : Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:53:23 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
I'll give a for instance for all the good it will do. �A little while ago we were discussing the so-called "Problem of evil". �If "a deity created everything, then that deity created suffering." �To which my answer was basically, yes, that's right. �To which your response was "If that were true, then god is not a nice being." �

Now you don't believe that God exists, so you are not really asserting that He is not a nice being, you are dealing with a hypothetical situation in order supposedly to demonstrate a flaw in the logic of religious people in asserting that an omnipotent God can be good when responsible for our evil ridden reality. �Hypothetical propositions like this are commonplace in logic. �Such hypotheticals might be considered in geometric propositions such as "given an infinite plane ... ", even though no-one has ever seen an infinite plane or has evidence for their existence. �Yet, considering such things allows us to draw logical conclusions that are valid whether the objects used in the hypothetical exist or not. �Otherwise it would be meaningless to make assertions like "God cannot be omnipotent and good because ...". �

My response to your argument was that God can be omnipotent and good because the suffering experienced here is more than outweighed by the bliss to come. �Even though for me this was a literal statement of truth, for the purposes of the argument, it can be treated as a hypothetical proposition of the same kind as yours. �A proposition used to disprove your argument that an omnipotent God cannot be good if responsible for creating the world. �

At this point you decided to abandon our hypothetical situation and fall back on your assertion that since the afterlife doesn't exist, then the present suffering is not outweighed, and therefore that God is not good. �

If our hypothetical situation posits God, it also posits eternal life in a joyful heaven since the two are part and parcel. �From a logical standpoint, within the parameters of the hypothetical situation, my argument disposed of yours. �Since you could not counter my argument on any logical grounds, you chose instead to change the rules and disallow certain elements of the original hypothetical situation being considered. �If you did so consciously you are intellectually dishonest. �If you did so without realising it, you are confused. �

This sort of pattern has been repeated again and again in this thread and the other, and has made it impossible to treat each point in turn, rationally come to a conclusion about their pros and cons, and gradually build up a better mutual understanding. �
Back to top
Mystique
#53 Posted : Sunday, August 26, 2007 6:31:08 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
[quote author=Jela link=1162636212/50#51 date=1188096803]My response to your argument was that God can be omnipotent and good because the suffering experienced here is more than outweighed by the bliss to come.[/quote]

That doesn't even make sense - if this god is omnipotent, then he could just create bliss already. Instead, though, he allegedly created suffering intentionally, which is still evil.

Quote:
Even though for me this was a literal statement of truth, for the purposes of the argument, it can be treated as a hypothetical proposition of the same kind as yours.  A proposition used to disprove your argument that an omnipotent God cannot be good if responsible for creating the world.


Except, it doesn't disprove it - it supports an idea that a deity created something evil.

Quote:
At this point you decided to abandon our hypothetical situation and fall back on your assertion that since the afterlife doesn't exist, then the present suffering is not outweighed, and therefore that God is not good.


No, I said since you have no proof, there is no reason to conclude that there is an afterlife, which removes merit from anything assuming that there is. Even if you beg the question, and want me to grant you your statement - you are still claiming that this deity created something evil, which means that it cannot be an all-loving, compassionate being, and/or, it cannot be omnipotent. Elsewise, even in your description, there is a logical paradox that you've yet to overcome.

Quote:
If our hypothetical situation posits God, it also posits eternal life in a joyful heaven since the two are part and parcel.  From a logical standpoint, within the parameters of the hypothetical situation, my argument disposed of yours.


No, because as stated before, you're still claiming that your deity created evil. Thus, you still have the problem of evil - the paradox is still there.

Quote:
Since you could not counter my argument on any logical grounds, you chose instead to change the rules and disallow certain elements of the original hypothetical situation being considered.


Actually, when I made most of those points, I had no idea you were presenting this odd little hypothetical situation or that we had created a common hypothetical story to base all this on. Instead, as always, I assumed I was refuting individual arguments, since there wasn't any indication that I should assume otherwise.

Quote:
If you did so consciously you are intellectually dishonest.


Given the above - that there was no formal indication that we were creating this anecdote of yours together, and that you were asking to beg the question on two points but were apparently not clear on that - then, no, I've not done anything dishonest at all. I think it is rather dishonest and annoying of you to make such an accusation. At the same time, begging the question is a logical fallacy, even when used in thought experiments.

Quote:
If you did so without realising it, you are confused.


Quite frankly, this preposition of yours seems rather new to the conversation - it seems to me that you made a lot of assumptions without bothering to mention most of it to me - why would that make me confused?

Quote:
This sort of pattern has been repeated again and again in this thread and the other, and has made it impossible to treat each point in turn, rationally come to a conclusion about their pros and cons, and gradually build up a better mutual understanding.


And simply putting this alleged problem off on me is rather convenient for you, isn't it? I'm not thrilled with playing this game with you under these conditions. You're coming off as abrasive now and I'm not really impressed with your accusations.
Back to top
Mystique
#54 Posted : Sunday, August 26, 2007 9:43:34 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
Quote:
Quote:
My response to your argument was that God can be omnipotent and good because the suffering experienced here is more than outweighed by the bliss to come.


That doesn't even make sense - if this god is omnipotent, then he could just create bliss already. Instead, though, he allegedly created suffering intentionally, which is still evil.



If you want to succeed at sports, you train hard. �You get blisters and sore muscles. �You may even get depressed sometimes if it doesn't seem to be going that well, but the whole thing is made worth while when you succeed and experience the thrill of victory. �You could just get handed the trophy without any effort, but it is better and more satisfying to work for it. �Pain is not evil per se. �It depends on the context. �


When you refute arguments you need to consider not just the fragments but also the whole. �Parts of arguments can be mutually supporting and you need to be able to keep in mind the other things the person has said in order to understand their intended meaning. �This is precisely the way you manage to miss the point of so much of what is said to you, and how you end up half the time responding to things out of context, despite the fact that they were given to you in context. �


The following might illustrate my point. �



Quote:
Quote:

You are largely laying the blame at the right feet. We are born into a world of terrors. But most of the terror that we experience at the prospect of death, is the belief that this is the only life we will ever have.


Death is not the only suffering that people have in life. There's hunger and starvation, various abuses, debilitating injuries, disease, war ... though many of those may end in death, they can last for years before doing so.

Quote:

And much of the pain of suffering, is that we are using up time of the only life we have with it.


No, much of the pain and suffering is that it is pain and suffering. I know of few ill people who lament that too much time is consumed by the inconvenience of pain as their only complaint. Most just want the pain to end; the suffering to end.





My original statement was:

Quote:
You are largely laying the blame at the right feet. �We are born into a world of terrors. �But most of the terror that we experience at the prospect of death, is the belief that this is the only life we will ever have. �And much of the pain of suffering, is that we are using up time of the only life we have with it.



You have dissected these two consecutive sentences is separate isolated statements. �So that when analysing the first sentence you can accuse me of overlooking the subject matter I describe in the second. �
Back to top
Mystique
#55 Posted : Monday, August 27, 2007 3:21:52 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
[quote author=Jela link=1162636212/50#53 date=1188121414]If you want to succeed at sports, you train hard.  You get blisters and sore muscles.  You may even get depressed sometimes if it doesn't seem to be going that well, but the whole thing is made worth while when you succeed and experience the thrill of victory.  You could just get handed the trophy without any effort, but it is better and more satisfying to work for it.[/quote]

I think you are missing the point. We're supposedly talking about an omnipotent being, if we are talking about an omnipotent being, that being could bestow upon us *any* trait whatsoever without effort. That being could just give us the knowledge, strength, whatever without all the nonsense. That's what omnipotence means - all-powerful. If you're saying that the being can't just snap their fingers to bestow such training on us, then you're claiming you don't really have an omnipotent being. That's the paradox.

Quote:
Pain is not evil per se.  It depends on the context.


pain is suffering; suffering is, indeed, evil - that's why most people try to avoid it.

Quote:
When you refute arguments you need to consider not just the fragments but also the whole.  Parts of arguments can be mutually supporting and you need to be able to keep in mind the other things the person has said in order to understand their intended meaning.  This is precisely the way you manage to miss the point of so much of what is said to you, and how you end up half the time responding to things out of context, despite the fact that they were given to you in context.


You do realize it is extraordinarily unhealthy to place the blame on others all the time when you feel misunderstood? I know what you're trying to say - I'm very familiar with these arguments - most of them are philosophy 101.

Quote:
The following might illustrate my point.  

Quote:
Quote:

You are largely laying the blame at the right feet. We are born into a world of terrors. But most of the terror that we experience at the prospect of death, is the belief that this is the only life we will ever have.


Death is not the only suffering that people have in life. There's hunger and starvation, various abuses, debilitating injuries, disease, war ... though many of those may end in death, they can last for years before doing so.

Quote:

And much of the pain of suffering, is that we are using up time of the only life we have with it.


No, much of the pain and suffering is that it is pain and suffering. I know of few ill people who lament that too much time is consumed by the inconvenience of pain as their only complaint. Most just want the pain to end; the suffering to end.


My original statement was:

Quote:
You are largely laying the blame at the right feet.  We are born into a world of terrors.  But most of the terror that we experience at the prospect of death, is the belief that this is the only life we will ever have.  And much of the pain of suffering, is that we are using up time of the only life we have with it.


You have dissected these two consecutive sentences is separate isolated statements.  So that when analysing the first sentence you can accuse me of overlooking the subject matter I describe in the second.  


No, I understood what you were saying in both statements, but due to me being a real stickler about accuracies, I still corrected statements that were not true. Your second statement does not really articulate what I addressed when I responded to the earlier statement.
Back to top
Mystique
#56 Posted : Monday, August 27, 2007 7:34:21 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
LOL

Quote:
Quote:
If you want to succeed at sports, you train hard. You get blisters and sore muscles. You may even get depressed sometimes if it doesn't seem to be going that well, but the whole thing is made worth while when you succeed and experience the thrill of victory. You could just get handed the trophy without any effort, but it is better and more satisfying to work for it.


I think you are missing the point. We're supposedly talking about an omnipotent being, if we are talking about an omnipotent being, that being could bestow upon us *any* trait whatsoever without effort.




He can, but he chooses not to. �Or to put it another way: "You could just get handed the trophy without any effort, but it is better and more satisfying to work for it." �

Perhaps I should have worded it like this:

Quote:
God can and has created perfection, and it is here with us now. �But He also created more. �We live in a universe of more than perfection. �We are a special project. �Creatures born out of matter and remorseless biological competition. �Where some beings were born perfect as a gift from God, we earn ours, with our own struggle. �That is our unique experience.






Quote:
Quote:
Pain is not evil per se. It depends on the context.


pain is suffering; suffering is, indeed, evil - that's why most people try to avoid it.




Suffering is not evil. �People also avoid work, giving and learning; not because they're evil, but because it's not what they want at the time. �Something is not evil just because it's not what you want. �



Quote:
I'm very familiar with these arguments - most of them are philosophy 101.




Good, now all that remains is for you to do it. �




Quote:
Your second statement does not really articulate what I addressed when I responded to the earlier statement.



Your response to the first statement was simply a list of kinds of suffering, which I cover in the second sentence with the words "pain and suffering". �There was no other content. �
Back to top
Mystique
#57 Posted : Monday, August 27, 2007 10:24:39 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
[quote author=Jela link=1162636212/50#55 date=1188200061]He can, but he chooses not to.  Or to put it another way: "You could just get handed the trophy without any effort, but it is better and more satisfying to work for it." [/quote]

The perception of a reward is a function of the brain - a brain that this alleged omnipotent being created. If the being truly was omnipotent, it could make things as rewarding or non rewarding as it wanted, regardless of effort!


Quote:
Suffering is not evil.  People also avoid work, giving and learning; not because they're evil, but because it's not what they want at the time.  Something is not evil just because it's not what you want.


Saying that people avoid suffering because it is evil is not the same as saying that people avoid other things because they're evil. You've reversed the word order of the prepositions to make a fallacy. Note:

*suffering is evil; people avoid suffering

form: X is evil; people avoid X

not the same as: people avoid X > X is evil.

See how you switched it around? Sneaky, dishonest, and/or poor logic.
Back to top
Mystique
#58 Posted : Friday, August 31, 2007 1:35:37 PM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
Hello everyone.

As I study Philosopy for my degree, this thread naturally caught my eye.

I'd like to offer some of my thoughts if I may, (I haven't read every post here so im sorry if I reilterate or tread on anyones feet.)


The problem many of us suffer with these questions is one of perception. It is extremely difficult to distance oneself from ones everyday trappings of social/consumerism/materialism/quantum bounds when our senses are bombarded with these everyday.  (Think of yourself an ant watching human fingers squash a grape, to the ant, these forces are unbelievebly massive, to humans it is an everyday occourance.)

Threads like these only show we already know what arguments can and cannot be knocked down. Kant says; "No metaphysical axiom can be proven to be necessary." Meaning, by its very nature, implies a metaphysical and teleological structure that is rooted in assumptions beyond mere matter. That is to say, you will be able to very easily poke holes in peoples presentations of the meaning of life and religion, by their very definitions.

It wouldn't be religion/philosophy/the meaning of life, if it were logically unassailable.

The only unassailable arguments these days are materialism and pure philosophical agnosticism. If you are dealing with someone who believes that the material world exists, you can win every argument by having the position that all that exists are atoms and molecules bouncing randomly around and that there is no moral or philosophical principle that can be proven to be true, or even to have any meaning. Life is completely pointless on a philosophical level,

...But if you want to continue filling your belly just for the sheer bloody-mindedness of it, Darwin pointed out the basic game plan and Ayn Rand filled in the egotistical details.

Have at it.

If, however, you have someone who is more clever and knows to argue that the material world may not exist, then there are not only no moral or philosophical principles that can be proven to exist, but indeed, there are no scientific principles that can be proven to exist either. You have sunken into pure solipsism, which of course can't be proven either, leaving you with no provable statements whatsoever.

Hmm, not alot to stand on. Simpily meaning, Philosophy can never be quantified or measured. There is no scientific riguor, only logic, thought, theory and observation.

Back to the first question at hand. Atheism is simpily a clean sheet. As Descrates learnt; how can you question the world when your very foundations and core beliefs maybe untrue? (This is called Descrates Demon, if you want to look it up, its fascinating!) I first must rid myself of all beliefs, schemas and preconceptions to truly question.

How can you ever question the world when you truly believe that God made it all? How far does that get you?


Thank you for your time.
x
Back to top
Mystique
#59 Posted : Monday, September 03, 2007 7:34:03 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
Few things,

1) Thank you for your post, it was great!

2) I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand, but will probably have to read more because so many of my peers like to point to Rand. Of what I have read, though, I find a few morsals of goodness amongst a lot of logical errors and pretentiousness. How do you feel about Rand over all?

3) It is DesCartes's 'Evil Demons' analogy. Just thought I would help with the spelling in case people wanted to look it up Smile DesCartes did have an answer to the Demons analogy, though it was a rather poor one - flawed enough to lead many philosophers to criticize him for breaking his own philosophical rule. Indeed, one of his counter arguments leads to the nickname of what is now known as a specific type of circular argument, the Cartesian circle.
Back to top
Mystique
#60 Posted : Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:14:39 PM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
Seven Deadly Sins:


1) Being an idiot; not wanting to learn and not learning from experience. What you don�t know can hurt you and your family and what you do think you know may not be real.
2) Complacency: Not standing for what we know is right. If we do not stand for what we know is right then we are doomed. People can only walk together unless they agree.
3) Words: Our word�s make us who we are and exposes the intent of the heart. We each seek what we are like good or evil. Love or hate are action words, each are seeds that when spoken are done so on purpose that will bear fruit one way or the other. Words of love lead to life and those of hate lead to destruction. True friendship brings harmony, peace and love.
4) Going a long to get along. If we go along to get a long we will not stand for the truth, but stand with people that have and agenda. Untruths and half truths often lead to hate, and prejudice and allows people to be critical with others and if we judge then we become gods of our own lives.
5) Slavery and bondage: When one is in slavery there is no autonomy, and if no autonomy, there can be no freedom or equality or respect for self or others. Slaves including employees are used and discarded.
6) Domination: Bad domination is not leadership, but about control and manipulation. Bad domination twists the truth and uses people for their own self gratification. Domination hates and cannot love others. It seeks often to destroy that which it does not understand.
7) Wasting time and or space, no plan not knowing who or what is in control. If we do not know who or what is in control we are slaves. We each are influenced by stimuli and that stimuli may appear to be good, but may not be. People can only be corrupted or go off track when they do not have a plan for themselves or their family. We all get stuck in ruts, make sure you know the rut before you get stuck in it?


Paths in life are directions, which will either lead to bondage or freedom and usually come as a result of good or bad relationships.
Back to top
Mystique
#61 Posted : Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:30:03 PM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
[quote author=Akatriel link=1162636212/50#57 date=1188567337]Hello everyone.

As I study Philosopy for my degree, this thread naturally caught my eye.

I'd like to offer some of my thoughts if I may, (I haven't read every post here so im sorry if I reilterate or tread on anyones feet.)


The problem many of us suffer with these questions is one of perception. It is extremely difficult to distance oneself from ones everyday trappings of social/consumerism/materialism/quantum bounds when our senses are bombarded with these everyday.  (Think of yourself an ant watching human fingers squash a grape, to the ant, these forces are unbelievebly massive, to humans it is an everyday occourance.)

Threads like these only show we already know what arguments can and cannot be knocked down. Kant says; "No metaphysical axiom can be proven to be necessary." Meaning, by its very nature, implies a metaphysical and teleological structure that is rooted in assumptions beyond mere matter. That is to say, you will be able to very easily poke holes in peoples presentations of the meaning of life and religion, by their very definitions.

It wouldn't be religion/philosophy/the meaning of life, if it were logically unassailable.

The only unassailable arguments these days are materialism and pure philosophical agnosticism. If you are dealing with someone who believes that the material world exists, you can win every argument by having the position that all that exists are atoms and molecules bouncing randomly around and that there is no moral or philosophical principle that can be proven to be true, or even to have any meaning. Life is completely pointless on a philosophical level,

...But if you want to continue filling your belly just for the sheer bloody-mindedness of it, Darwin pointed out the basic game plan and Ayn Rand filled in the egotistical details.

Have at it.

If, however, you have someone who is more clever and knows to argue that the material world may not exist, then there are not only no moral or philosophical principles that can be proven to exist, but indeed, there are no scientific principles that can be proven to exist either. You have sunken into pure solipsism, which of course can't be proven either, leaving you with no provable statements whatsoever.

Hmm, not alot to stand on. Simpily meaning, Philosophy can never be quantified or measured. There is no scientific riguor, only logic, thought, theory and observation.

Back to the first question at hand. Atheism is simpily a clean sheet. As Descrates learnt; how can you question the world when your very foundations and core beliefs maybe untrue? (This is called Descrates Demon, if you want to look it up, its fascinating!) I first must rid myself of all beliefs, schemas and preconceptions to truly question.

How can you ever question the world when you truly believe that God made it all? How far does that get you?


Thank you for your time.
x[/quote]

It's just my opinion but wisdom level of learning is about being able to apply information to everyday life. Were the problems come in as I see it is beliefs are often times difficult to put to practical use and secondly, the message sent is often times not the message received as everyone hears and speaks from a condition of the heart. OK what the heck does that mean?

Practical application, is the information usable. For example the statement, "God is in control." Sounds good. Why would we like that statement? Well clearly if God is in control then everything is up to God to do and there is little responsibility or accountability because God is in control? After all who wants to buck God let alone the system if God put the system in place. On other thing the listener could deduce from the statement is "if God is in control why do anything about anything important in life, like ending starvation or homelessness." After all God is in control?

Beliefs are funny things. Beliefs can be true or not true but people fight, argue and even go to war and kill for their beliefs even if they may not be true, but that's not important to the person because they believe that what they believe is true.

Give an example: Everyone pretty much gets up in the morning and puts there clothes on the same way, it is from that that makes a difference and its the well meaning people that usually screw it up. Well meaning because of their particular beliefs. People believe they are doing the right things generally, very few get up in the morning and declare to the world that they are going to do everything in their power to fuck it up for others, but that is what happens.

Beliefs good and bad should be something that someone especially the speaker of those beliefs can live by otherwise it is much like a person that speaks with a paper rectum.  Wink
Back to top
Mystique
#62 Posted : Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:44:12 PM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
[quote author=Jela link=1162636212/50#55 date=1188200061]LOL

Quote:
Quote:
If you want to succeed at sports, you train hard. You get blisters and sore muscles. You may even get depressed sometimes if it doesn't seem to be going that well, but the whole thing is made worth while when you succeed and experience the thrill of victory. You could just get handed the trophy without any effort, but it is better and more satisfying to work for it.


I think you are missing the point. We're supposedly talking about an omnipotent being, if we are talking about an omnipotent being, that being could bestow upon us *any* trait whatsoever without effort.




Perhaps I should have worded it like this:

Quote:
God can and has created perfection, and it is here with us now.  But He also created more.  We live in a universe of more than perfection.  We are a special project.  Creatures born out of matter and remorseless biological competition.  Where some beings were born perfect as a gift from God, we earn ours, with our own struggle.  That is our unique experience.






Quote:
Quote:
Pain is not evil per se. It depends on the context.


pain is suffering; suffering is, indeed, evil - that's why most people try to avoid it.




Suffering is not evil.  People also avoid work, giving and learning; not because they're evil, but because it's not what they want at the time.  Something is not evil just because it's not what you want.  



Quote:
I'm very familiar with these arguments - most of them are philosophy 101.




Good, now all that remains is for you to do it.  




Quote:
Your second statement does not really articulate what I addressed when I responded to the earlier statement.



Your response to the first statement was simply a list of kinds of suffering, which I cover in the second sentence with the words "pain and suffering".  There was no other content.  



[/quote]

Ah the debate between good and evil........ Problem is man has a tendency to call evil things good and mostly because man cannot in general predict the future. For example the US is involved in a war against terrorism. OK only a self serving idiot would like terrorism so who would not support the effort to stamp out terrorism or evil. Problem is most terrorism and evil dwells in us and if we think its someone else then we become the victims as we cannot fix others, only ourselves at best.

So is the war on terrorism a good thing or an evil thing? Perspective and time will tell the truth but what I have found to be true is some like to give broad generalities like for example "war on terrorism" because often they have a hidden agenda. Speak clear and make it plain so even an idiot can understand what is being said. War on terrorism can lead to everyone in the US carrying a national ID card that can track the individual 24/7 and put you in prison if you do not have your ID handy when asked for it. The war will close off borders not just so people cannot get in, but so people cannot get out either. Then of course because of the war we can tap everyones phone just in case they are a terrorist. We can also start wars where we want and when we want and justify the hell out of it because we are on a holy crusade to save the earth from terrorism.

Sounds like good is more like evil. Guy named Hitler had much the same concepts and beliefs if you look at it closely?   :'(
Back to top
Mystique
#63 Posted : Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:05:30 PM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
[quote author=Jela link=1162636212/25#25 date=1179739916]This subject has also cropped up in the Religion vs Science thread, where Mystique responded to one of my comments with the following.  

Quote:
Quote:
If someone could dominate, then that was enough justification. Noble virtues are primarily a product of religion. You've given examples of some humanist welfare organisations, but the fact remains that most welfare is provided by the religious.


Only because there are more religious people per capita than there are non - however, as I pointed out, per capita, more non religious contribute to such things. Thus, regardless of who overall is contributing more, per capita, the non religious at least seem to be putting out more effort.



I'm not exactly sure that is a true statement that more giving is done by religious people than non religious people? Facts are some 14,000 per day starve to death globally and its not because the money is not the there to help and save those lives but religious people have a slight tendency to build buildings more than feed people. The point of it I would like to think is love one another and part of that is helping those that certainly are starving to death? That would seem to be God's will and the fact is if everyone that called themselves even a Christian, let alone picking on other religions, would give each cough up with one dollar per month, there would be enough money to care for all the starving and care for the homeless globally.

It's obviously a choice to care about the needs of others or choose not to give a rip, but it would be more honest to say "I don't give a rip", instead of preaching a lot about love?

But then shit what do I know?
Back to top
Mystique
#64 Posted : Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:15:36 PM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#2 date=1162812172]I sure hope your faith in God hasn't dwindled Scary.  If so I engage you to try something that perhaps could re-invoke your faith.  Let me first say I do not adhere to any one religion.  But exhalt any church that inspires people to do good in the world.  And I not only believe in God, I KNOW in God.  

Here's the method to open communication with God.  It isn't easy and it takes pure concentration.  But once accomplished, you will never have to try to do it ever again.  

Step One:    Forgive everyone of everything who has done you wrong.

Step Two:    Love all of God's creations with your entire heart and expand your compassion to reach the entire universe.

Step Three:  Dedicate your entire existence to the betterment of all humanity and forfeit your soul to God's Love

Step Four:    Begin the harsh walk on the path of the creative altruist never looking back.

And then and only then God will greet you.  Not in a physical manifestation but by pure emphatic emotion.  You will uncontrollably fall to your knees in humility and shed tears of pure joy.  For God's presence is something to cherish and adore for all eternity.  You will then be blessed and empowered and will walk the earth as one of the chosen.  And you will have divine insight to matters most are blind.

I personally fear no death.  I fear no pain.  I fear no person.  Torture is irrelevant, for death is just a door to the next plain.  As my mentor once said, "I care not for longevity, for I have been to the mountain top and I have seen the promised land."  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. knew about it.  But not everyone can travel the path.  For some, their hearts are too weak and their hatred too strong.

But if anyone doubts my statement, I ask first that you try it.  
[/quote]

That's a scary word, "faith," what exactly does that mean? Faith a belief is it an action word where someone might actually see that we are TRYING to accomplish something and have faith that God will back you up. OR is it just faith that there is a God? Or is it faith there will be a sunrise and sunset?

What does that word faith mean and how does one apply it?

"As my mentor once said, "I care not for longevity, for I have been to the mountain top and I have seen the promised land."  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. knew about it." I really don't see where King had much to offer except to stand and get others to stand, but what was the outcome? Race riots, so I am not sure if that was such a good thing either. Apparently the love he wanted for blacks was not for the blacks to try and love the whites but burn city after city, which was the end result to what King started.

I admire King don't misunderstand, but he did not have it all together nor lead the people obviously in the right direction unless that directions was to rip a country apart which created more intolerance for blacks than what was there to begin with. Yes he started something but lacked the wisdom to make it a good thing. Not getting down on King I am sure he did the best he knew how, but what he did start was a civil war that continues even today. Did that bring freedom or more mistrust?
Back to top
Mystique
#65 Posted : Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:25:55 PM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#4 date=1162879287]Sounds like your an Agnostic Dave.  A very respectable stance IMO.[/quote]

Actually agnos means he has no beliefs and one can see he has beliefs. egnos is Greek which means a person believes in nothing. nostos which is believing they are a super duper something or other.

Wink
Back to top
Mystique
#66 Posted : Wednesday, September 05, 2007 12:46:54 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
Hello Kate, thank you for your thoughts.

[quote author=Mistress_Katie link=1162636212/50#59 date=1188918879]Seven Deadly Sins:


1) Being an idiot; not wanting to learn and not learning from experience. What you don�t know can hurt you and your family and what you do think you know may not be real.
2) Complacency: Not standing for what we know is right. If we do not stand for what we know is right then we are doomed. People can only walk together unless they agree.[/quote]

If number 1 is true, then it seems that number 2 should always be called into question. If not standing for what we know is right is really a 'sin,' and what we think we know may not be real, then it seems impossible to even know if we have sinned or not. I also have to disagree that people can only walk together if they agree - ir is that what you were trying to say? I have had many encounters with people who I disagree with, but can have peaceful discussions with and can accomplish many things with.

Quote:
3) Words: Our word�s make us who we are and exposes the intent of the heart. We each seek what we are like good or evil. Love or hate are action words, each are seeds that when spoken are done so on purpose that will bear fruit one way or the other. Words of love lead to life and those of hate lead to destruction. True friendship brings harmony, peace and love.


Words are powerful things at times, but they only hold as much power as we give them. Words are also not all that we are, there is far more to each of us than just what we say.

Quote:
4) Going a long to get along. If we go along to get a long we will not stand for the truth, but stand with people that have and agenda. Untruths and half truths often lead to hate, and prejudice and allows people to be critical with others and if we judge then we become gods of our own lives.


Herd behavior, along with dogma and lack of critical thinking are some of the biggest flaws that humans possess. I assume that is what you mean by 'going along to get along'. No other behaviors have led to more destruction amongst humans than those things.

Quote:
5) Slavery and bondage: When one is in slavery there is no autonomy, and if no autonomy, there can be no freedom or equality or respect for self or others. Slaves including employees are used and discarded.


I know what you're saying, but I find this statement amusing coming from someone calling herself 'Mistress_Kate' - no offense, it is just a little funny Smile

Quote:
Practical application, is the information usable. For example the statement, "God is in control." Sounds good. Why would we like that statement? Well clearly if God is in control then everything is up to God to do and there is little responsibility or accountability because God is in control? After all who wants to buck God let alone the system if God put the system in place. On other thing the listener could deduce from the statement is "if God is in control why do anything about anything important in life, like ending starvation or homelessness." After all God is in control?


Very well stated.

Quote:
I admire King don't misunderstand, but he did not have it all together nor lead the people obviously in the right direction unless that directions was to rip a country apart which created more intolerance for blacks than what was there to begin with. Yes he started something but lacked the wisdom to make it a good thing. Not getting down on King I am sure he did the best he knew how, but what he did start was a civil war that continues even today. Did that bring freedom or more mistrust?


I don't think King started a civil war. King was an advocate of peaceful means to gaining more freedoms. Now, Malcom X on the other hand, he did advocate riots, and his methods that he promoted were not all that productive.

Quote:
Actually agnos means he has no beliefs and one can see he has beliefs. egnos is Greek which means a person believes in nothing. nostos which is believing they are a super duper something or other


Actually, agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. gonstic - being a reference to knowledge. "Agnostic" means to be unable to know. Which, contrary to popular belief, is not an in-between stance. Atheism vs Theism are statements of belief. If one does not believe, then they are an atheist, whereas, if they believe, they are a theist. Agnosticism is a separate issue. This is why you can have people called, 'agnostic-atheists,' because they are really making 1) a statement regarding knowledge and 2) a statement regarding belief.
Back to top
Mystique
#67 Posted : Wednesday, September 05, 2007 1:03:40 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
Quote:
5) Slavery and bondage: When one is in slavery there is no autonomy, and if no autonomy, there can be no freedom or equality or respect for self or others. Slaves including employees are used and discarded.


I know what you're saying, but I find this statement amusing coming from someone calling herself 'Mistress_Kate' - no offense, it is just a little funny



No offense taken: mistress teacher, title.


Main Entry: gnos�ti�cism
Pronunciation: 'n�s-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

They believed they knew more than others.

main Entry: agnostic
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being an agnostic or the beliefs of agnostics
2 : NONCOMMITTAL, UNDOGMATIC, UNBELIEVING
Back to top
Mystique
#68 Posted : Thursday, September 06, 2007 3:09:32 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
[quote author=Mistress_Katie link=1162636212/50#66 date=1188954220]Quote:
5) Slavery and bondage: When one is in slavery there is no autonomy, and if no autonomy, there can be no freedom or equality or respect for self or others. Slaves including employees are used and discarded.


I know what you're saying, but I find this statement amusing coming from someone calling herself 'Mistress_Kate' - no offense, it is just a little funny



No offense taken: mistress teacher, title.


Main Entry: gnos�ti�cism
Pronunciation: 'n�s-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

They believed they knew more than others.

main Entry: agnostic
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being an agnostic or the beliefs of agnostics
2 : NONCOMMITTAL, UNDOGMATIC, UNBELIEVING [/quote]

The term 'agnostic' in this sense doesn't come from the term 'gnostic' the way you would use it in reference to the gnostics.

Here is an excerpt from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:

Quote:
3. Agnosticism

Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word �agnostic�, it seems (perhaps independently) to have been introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society, which flourished for over a decade and to which belonged notable thinkers and leaders of opinion. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various �isms� he would invent one for himself. He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to the unknown God in his letter to the Ephesians. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. �Agnostic� is more contextual than is �atheist�, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it. In this article I confine myself to the use of �agnostic� in a theological context.

Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief.
Back to top
Mystique
#69 Posted : Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:22:22 AM(UTC)
Rank: RLC Regular

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 157
lol, I only read like one sentance of that
im athiest and damn proud of it
im the type of person where I have to see something to believe it
and I HATE it when people force things on me  >Sad
Back to top
morninghoneybee
#70 Posted : Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:55:11 PM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
[quote author=FlameGoddess26 link=1162636212/50#68 date=1189329742]lol, I only read like one sentance of that
im athiest and damn proud of it
im the type of person where I have to see something to believe it
and I HATE it when people force things on me �>Sad[/quote]

Ya Flame I totally agree with you! Im not an athiest, but I have my own beliefs and HATE it when people tell me I'm 'wrong' or I'm going to hell  ;D I dont believe in hell!  Tongue
Back to top
morninghoneybee
#71 Posted : Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:36:27 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
[quote author=mocksoup link=1162636212/0#12 date=1164078254]I don't know why there is such a divisive nature in this. Labels are to identify us to hopefully others who feel 'the same' so we can have a sense of camaradere.

Not to drag this off-topic but i see labels used in a much more malign way - WW2 and the Jews? more recently Bosnian Serbs? The end is listless..labels are used to divide and to exert control - and in religion it seems to me as much as in politics - if you don't believe in my religion you are damned....i think labels ARE divisive Mocksoup..isn't that implied in "The Dangers of Atheism" title itself?

i think your statement is how labels COULD be used and i hope will be used...historically i think they have been used to divide and conquer and even destroy - remember the Cathars?
Back to top
morninghoneybee
#72 Posted : Sunday, December 23, 2007 6:07:02 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] To me atheists are people who clearly see through the religious B.S. �These folks have a higher degree of "sales resistance" for lack of a better term.[ch12288][/quote]
Yes; approx. 20% of people are born with better hardwiring that enables us to differentiate between what is true and what we would like to be true.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] �And so they spiritually de-evolve into complete cynics.[/quote]
What is "spiritually"? And, having defined the word, present your evidence for this statement.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]
�Thus preventing their now narrowed vision from seeing the possibilities that can exist. [/quote]
On the contrary, you seem to be confusing possibilities with impossibilities. There are no faeries at the bottom of the garden, no matter how much you might wish there were.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] �What if God is our Love? [/quote]
And what if god is a pink banana with vaseline?
Arbitrarily redefining words makes you Humpty Dumpty, as Alice found out. The word "god" has a specific meaning: a supernatural entity that grants prayers and is omniscient and omnipresent (although theodicy calls into question the possibility of omnibenevolent). Any other attempt to redefine the word is ad hoc and self-serving.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]  �That is one possibility that can prove the existence of God. [/quote]
No, that proves the existence of love. The two are not the same.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]  Not one people like to paint, but one none-the-less[/quote]
How much did you have to drink before writing this meaningless non-sentence?
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]  No one knows, yet we all pretend. �[/quote]
You seem to live in a black and white world in which there are only two P values: 0 and 1. Atheists live in the real world and understand Popperian falsification.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] There is no one being on this planet that can tell you what will happen after you die for sure.[/quote]
And no one can tell you "for sure" that the sun will rise tomorrow. Again, you're living by a false binary notion of P=0 or P=1. Further, I don't know of anyone who makes the claim you think you're rebutting. What we do know for certain is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the physical organ of the brain, so that when brain death occurs, your consciousness (i.e., personality) must de facto be lost. If you think there is a "soul", please offer your evidence for such a belief.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] �Or even if they did know, how to effectively manipulate results. � This life came with no "How to instruction manual." �So we have gone to many lengths to write them ourselves. �But they are only guesses. [/quote]
No, they are not guesses. They are rational conclusions based on the evidence.
If you stick your finger in the light socket and get an electric shock, it may be a coincidence-- a one-off. So you do it again. And again. And again. After 1,000 identical electric shocks, only a fool would think that the 1,001 time might yield different results. But you are welcome to try for another 1,000 times if that's what floats your boat.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] The dangers of Atheism are real however.[/quote]
What is dangerous about facing reality?
(...To be continued.)
Back to top
morninghoneybee
#73 Posted : Sunday, December 23, 2007 6:25:19 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] �For if one believes in oblivion upon death one may be cheated out of an experience that could be the highlight of your entire life. [/quote]
Surely wasting your time worrying about a mythical afterlife robs you of the real highlights of your life?
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] The scientific Heaven and Hell. [/quote]
As opposed to the fictional heaven and hell?
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] When you die (unless obliterated completely) your brain stem goes into hyper-activity. �The brain knows its dying from lack of oxygen and releases all your endorphines giving you a shot of pure joy. �The pressure builds in the blood vessels behind your eyes giving you a "tunnel of light" hallucination as the endorphines teach you what peace feels like. �You fade into unconsciousness having what is termed "A waking dream." �Meaning the best damn dream you will ever have. [/quote]
One that is then quickly over and gone forever, as is your consciousness. What is your point?
Another point: above, you said that "nobody know for certain", and yet here you are making matter-of-fact statements about life after death! Are you dead? Or just muddled and inconsistent in your thinking?
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]Since the Subconscious mind will be escorting you to your death your beliefs will and can have effects on this critical moment. �If you believe you are going to heaven and will meet jesus, then so be it. �You meet Jesus. �If you think your a jerk ass and are definately going to hell, then guess what, your last moments will be a nightmare of your creation. [/quote]
No, you will HALLUCINATE that you are meeting Jesus. The meeting will take place only inside your dying mind. No actual physical encounter will take place. Same with dreams of hell; they will all be over in moments, and then you will know nothing ever more.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]And anyone who has ever passed out can tell you seconds can turn into hours while in this state of mind. �So 5 minutes could theoretically seem like days or even weeks. �Thus enabling the possibility of your life flashing before your eyes.[/quote]
Nonsense. Perceived time dilation may occur, but it will not last as long as you seem to think. Perceptual dilation is not infinitely malleable. Further, regardless, the reality will be the same to any external observer to your death: it will be over very quickly.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]
Coming back to the danger of being atheist. �Were one to believe in nothing what would thier last moment of life be for them? [/quote]
Is there anyone who believes in nothing? Or is this just a fruitless thought experiment?
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]A black frame?[/quote]A black frame is something: it is a frame colored black. You sound like a solipsist.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] Such a sad waste. [/quote]
It would be if anyone were actually like that. But is there anyone, or are you just fabricating a straw man?
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]
�My advice, define your own relationship with a God that can inspire you to do good things (make-em up if needed).[/quote] So, you do admit that this is all made-up? Why not do good things because virtue is its on reward? Or is that too platonic for you? Why do you need to imagine a relationship with a made-up creature to do good?
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]
�Build your own heaven and do what you think you need to do to get there. �Then when the time comes........ �You go out in your own crafted style. �Not in oblivion. �Not in Hell or any other invention of humanity. �But the way you picked yourself.[/quote]
You may not have any choice in how you die; or do you mistakenly think that you can reason with a cancer? Or an accident?
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211] Death comes in a dream. �[/quote]
No, death is a reality for everyone. You have a brief time in the sun, and then you are gone for good. Better by far to live a purposeful life without one eye on a mythical afterlife.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]Just knowing that fact alone can perhaps give you a lucid death dream. �Meaning one you can control and actively manipulate.[/quote]
And what if you die in your sleep?
All this talk of death drems is pseudoscientific garbage. The so-called "tunnel of light", the light-headedness, even out-of-body experiences, are all symptoms of hypoxia. All perfectly explicable by modern science. No metaphysical boogeymen required.
[quote author=DarkComedian link=1162636212/0#0 date=1162636211]
�Food for thought. �
[/quote]
No, unless it's to ponder how you could write such uninformed drivel full of strawmen, non sequiturs, solipsism, and other logical fallacies.
Back to top
morninghoneybee
#74 Posted : Saturday, January 05, 2008 6:44:29 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
It is not dangerous to be an atheist.  Sam Harris had a good point when he said 'Atheism' is essentially a meaningless term.  He used the example of racism ... some people are racists and most are not.  Do the non-racists then define themselves as 'non-racist' ... or is it just understood in their actions and behavior?  If you are 'not' something - as Atheism ... suggests regarding god - not a god person -i t is like asexual - not sexual.  Or Agnostic (as well explained above.)

I don't chew bubble gum ... but I don't identify with that fact and overtly let people know ... it is just something I don't do - I see no need to try to 'convert' people from stopping this disgusting habit.

How can it be dangerous to not believe something unprovable in the first place?  As a woman of faith, I really can't explain why I have faith ... probably no better than a non-believer can explain their non-belief.  If I had faith and rejected it anyway ... that is likely dangerous - and so is the opposite, I should think: we cannot reject faith and accept it also.  - ahhhhh?  Faith, etc, I had almost forgotten such concerns and simple worries - it will all work, I assure you .... peace my mortal friends - Jerlon of Isis.
Back to top
morninghoneybee
#75 Posted : Saturday, January 05, 2008 12:28:03 PM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
[quote author=Jerlon link=1162636212/50#73 date=1199515469] It is not dangerous to be an atheist. �Sam Harris had a good point when he said 'Atheism' is essentially a meaningless term. �He used the example of racism ... some people are racists and most are not. �Do the non-racists then define themselves as 'non-racist' ... or is it just understood in their actions and behavior? �If you are 'not' something - as Atheism ... suggests regarding god - not a god person -i t is like asexual - not sexual. �Or Agnostic (as well explained above.)  [/quote]
I disagree with the "asexual" term, Jerlon, because asexual species such as aphids can still reproduce, whereas theism is utterly sterile as a philosophy.
[quote author=Jerlon link=1162636212/50#73 date=1199515469]I don't chew bubble gum ... but I don't identify with that fact and overtly let people know ... it is just something I don't do - I see no need to try to 'convert' people from stopping this disgusting habit. [/quote]
Whether it's "disgusting" or not (a completely subjective term here, note, the bottom line is that such behavior in no way impacts your lifestyle, so you have no right to try and prevent it.
[quote author=Jerlon link=1162636212/50#73 date=1199515469]How can it be dangerous to not believe something unprovable in the first place? �As a woman of faith, I really can't explain why I have faith ... probably no better than a non-believer can explain their non-belief. �If I had faith and rejected it anyway ... that is likely dangerous - and so is the opposite, I should think: we cannot reject faith and accept it also. �- ahhhhh? �Faith, etc, I had almost forgotten such concerns and simple worries - it will all work, I assure you .... peace my mortal friends - Jerlon of Isis. [/quote]
That is not true. I can explain non-belief: why believe something for which there is no evidence? Do you believe in Santa Claus? Unicorns? The tooth fairy?
Then why believe in something for which there is equally no evidence, but which is mathematically even less likely?
...And that's why we're atheists. It's all about the evidence.
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
4 Pages<1234>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Clean Slate theme by Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2010, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.318 seconds.
TC-QIIS-1