To: Atheists/Agnostics etc.

[Jeff7]

Long thread, so probably already mentioned but, why does right/wrong have to be determined by a higher power? The major moral issues (theft and violence) are pretty much universally agreed upon. There are a few small cultures that don't value possessions, but those tend to be tribes living away from society.

If you're truly a Christian who believes in the afterlife, why not just end this life now and join the kingdom of heaven?

Well they went and plugged that loophole by saying that suicide is bad.

And yet murder is still frowned upon, despite the fact that, in the religious context, they're doing someone a great favor by speeding someone's journey out of this miserable flicker of an existence.
If murder is muddling in "God's domain," then people who cause fatal car accidents should always be charged as murderers as well, unless someone wants to say that it was God who decided that the crash needed to occur, and therefore took control of the vehicle from the person who survived.

http://youtu.be/JbvDYyoAv9k

Nice. That led me to this.

Sometime around 48 minutes, and again toward the end, maybe 1:14:00, he also gets in a very nice argument about the value of the sort of scientific exploration that people always complain about. "Oh, why are we wasting money studying that? We've got problems now that need solving!"
Stop that exploration, and that study, and that investment, and we're still stuck pre-Stone Age.

 

[SSSnail]

If I ever see anyone cry at a religious funeral, I'm gonna want to punch someone in the face. It should be a celebration. You should be throwing a party. Because that person that just died? Well, he/she is on the way to meet the maker. And that it's the Lawd's will. So, why cry?

 

[SSSnail]

Oh, and the next time any of you religious idiots get sick, please do yourselves a favor and don't rely on any of the wonderful scientific methods to keeping your asses alive. No medicines, no surgery, etc... just pray. Why prolong the agony here on earth when you can just let it end naturally so you accept your maker's will? Go be with him/her/it.

 

[tcsenter]

Or create a document that has very little useful information, and which is quite excessively short, given the complexity of the system that's been created. There's no published datasheet for our reality, let alone even just our species.

This is perhaps the greatest evidence against a "Creator", not merely being poor or weak evidence in favor. I mean, its God for chrissakes. If you believe in one, then you MUST believe he created the universe with all its mind-bending complexity - all of it by design - but could NOT "design" or "inspire" a coherent or consistent Gospel for the ages that would inspire most any rational and intellectually honest person to admit in its merit or credibility (at least to some degree), not just those who were 'primed' to already accept or believe in God through growing-up in a community full of believers or because of some coincidences they attribute to the supernatural.

Shit! A small group of decently-educated persons today could devise a Gospel for retroactive use that would not only be coherent and consistent but contain a gob of Easter Eggs, nuggets of information or clues that hint upon something more, which perhaps only later generations would come to understand the significance of with the advent of future discoveries and knowledge. And it could all be done in plain language AND be a lot more resistant to translation problems. And it could be done in a way that subsequent revelations in knowledge only bolster it rather than persuasively discredits or is at odds with it, or at least has a neutral effect on previous interpretations.

But the fucked-up Gospels as we know them are exactly what you'd expect of men 2000+ years ago, completely uninspired or unguided by any divine all-knowing influence. Seriously, God? This is the steaming pile of dung on which you want me to be persuaded about the fate of my eternal soul and your power to save it?

 

[alzan]

If he did present some "evidence", would you objectively examine and consider it?

The problem with people who call for "undeniable proof and evidence", really don't want it to begin with. What they really want to do is cover up their own insecurities and lack of evidence to the contrary by unfairly keeping the burden of proof on the believer. They already think they've "won" anyway, so they have no evidence and don't feel they need it.

If someone believes flying unicorns existed, so what? That's on them.

But if YOU'RE going to assert God doesn't exist, you have no burden? This isn't table shifting,... you do have some burden to prove that what we believe is hogwash.

The world doesn't work that way. What you can't do is assert you're right without proving it either.

If you can't meet any of your criteria to prove he doesn't exist (which I am assuming is the position you hold), you need to live and let live, and give believers the same respect you want. Keep your non-believe to yourself, everyone doesn't care to hear it either, just as you don't care for what believers have to say on the matter and should keep it "personal".

That which can be asserted without evidence, ("God is real") can also be dismissed without evidence.

I'll live and let live when the religionists do likewise. As long as they persist in trying to influence local, state and federal laws that affect us all they'll be my eternal foe.

"Around Perditions rim will I chase thee."
"From Hell's heart, I stab at thee"

 

[hans030390]

What keeps you going ? What is your hope for your current life ?

I am honestly not trying to start any kind of argument, I legitimately want to know what it is that you look forward to.

If there is no God, if there is nothing after death, if there is no right/wrong determined by a higher power etc. Then, to be blunt, what keeps you from ending it all right now ?


I've had my share of heartache, and I see many many more people with far bigger struggles and troubles.

If I was completely sold on there being no God or afterlife, I sincerly believe I would have put a gun to my head long ago.

Everyone will agree that we take nothing with us when we die. None of our wealth, posessions or even loved ones.

So what is keeping you going ? What do you put your hope into ?

Been thinking about how depressing that would be, and really wanted to hear some feedback.

Why do you inherently assume having no purpose or meaning is depressing? I find it liberating. While I accept that my existence really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I still decide to make the best of it. I can either view it in a negative or positive light. Why not just live it as positively as possible? When it doesn't really matter what you ultimately think, then you might as well just make the best of it.

 

[OverVolt]

I used to like the Atheism stuff, it was like kindred spirits since Catholicism was getting political and a little wonky but you guys should re-read your own words and reflect back to what you used to think 5-10 years ago.

Some of the stuff is just outright kinda wrong.

I've really stirred up some bizarre shit I didn't know existed here.

Stop that exploration, and that study, and that investment, and we're still stuck pre-Stone Age.

Alright well you first, we'll double your taxes.

 

[Howard]

I enjoy being happy. I would prefer to continue being happy.

If nothing else, I also enjoy experiencing new things.

 

[OverVolt]

Why do you inherently assume having no purpose or meaning is depressing? I find it liberating. While I accept that my existence really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I still decide to make the best of it. I can either view it in a negative or positive light. Why not just live it as positively as possible? When it doesn't really matter what you ultimately think, then you might as well just make the best of it.

Having no purpose is obviously bad.

 

[OverVolt]

And yet murder is still frowned upon, despite the fact that, in the religious context, they're doing someone a great favor by speeding someone's journey out of this miserable flicker of an existence.
If murder is muddling in "God's domain," then people who cause fatal car accidents should always be charged as murderers as well, unless someone wants to say that it was God who decided that the crash needed to occur, and therefore took control of the vehicle from the person who survived.

You guys are being ridiculous and you know it. Maybe people are just really that uninformed I dunno. I went to catholic school for 12years. I think catholic's got too political, and the church is kind of on the wrong path. But aside from that car accidents don't muddle in "God's domain" they're just accidents. If you intentionally try to kill someone in an accident that is kinda fucked up. Please re-read your own posts cause its getting ridiculous.

Yea lets like intentionally kill each other in car accidents to get sweet release off this hellhole planet yea punch people in the face at funerals.

What The Fuck.

Atheists didn't used to be like this but you guys are proving what everyone thought would happen to the non-religious absolutely correct.

Yea people who get sick should just die as we hold out on them cause we don't like what they think, yea! Athiests!!! Grow the hell up.

I guess this is just a logical continuation of the man-child trend since everyone had a sheltered upbringing by the boomer generation. But its seriously messed up.

Penicillin was discovered by accident by the way, no research funding needed.

 

[OverVolt]

Well they went and plugged that loophole by saying that suicide is bad.

Anyway they consider suicide selfish toward your loved ones. I'll just start giving the actual catholic view on things, minus the catholic idiot stuff where they lost their way.

Like t-rex's teeth were for eating coconuts because none of gods creatures would be intelligently designed to eat each other. You know that end of the story, lol. And I don't agree with that aspect of the religious group.

But yup. Things are officially off the deep end for the Atheists.

 

[PowerEngineer]

What's happening now, though? Stop trying to jutisfy religious hate with the fact that religion hated people back then. It was unfortunate, and quite frankly, wrong on all levels, and unjustifiable.

If you want to hold that against religion forever, then fine.. your choice. But keep in mind that religious people today have nothing to do with the voilence back then.

The violence that blacks were subject to during the decades of white racial slavery and discrimination doesn't cause me to make an excuse to hate whites today -- those that have NOTHING to do with that.

There’s no need for me to “stop trying to justify religious hate” because I never started. The word “hate” is one that you’ve used and I’ve quoted. It is therefore up to you to stop.

What I have tried to do is give you some sense of what this issue looks like from the perspective of a non-believer. My tweaking of your rant against the non-believing “bigots” should have shown you how a similar rant can be made against believers. I’m sorry that didn’t work.

It’s interesting and somewhat frightening that you seem to think all strife between peoples caused by irreconcilable religious beliefs is history book material. It’s fair to say that today’s problems in the Middle East and south-central Asia have their roots in (ethnic and) religious differences.

This may not apply to you personally (because I have no idea what religious affiliation you claim), but a believer can’t just disown everything that his/her religion has done in its past – especially in cases where it continues to be done today. By claiming membership, you are also claiming credit and responsibility for what was (and is being) done in the name of that religion.

As an example, I agree with you that it doesn’t make much sense today for a black person to “hate” a white person solely because of slavery in the 1800’s. On the other hand, I think some animosity is understandable toward a white person who decides to be a member of the KKK (even for the lynchings and cross burnings in the past).

Finally, you seem to be under the impression that there is a tide of discrimination running against believers. In fact, the opposite is true.

Here’s my measure of the tide against non-believers. I never thought I’d see a non-white president. Now I can imagine that we’ll have a non-male president within the next 10-20 years. I’ll be long in my grave before we elect a non-believer president. When we do, the tide against non-believers will have finally ebbed.

 

[sandorski]

You guys are being ridiculous and you know it. Maybe people are just really that uninformed I dunno. I went to catholic school for 12years. I think catholic's got too political, and the church is kind of on the wrong path. But aside from that car accidents don't muddle in "God's domain" they're just accidents. If you intentionally try to kill someone in an accident that is kinda fucked up. Please re-read your own posts cause its getting ridiculous.



What The Fuck.

Atheists didn't used to be like this but you guys are proving what everyone thought would happen to the non-religious absolutely correct.

Yea people who get sick should just die as we hold out on them cause we don't like what they think, yea! Athiests!!! Grow the hell up.

I guess this is just a logical continuation of the man-child trend since everyone had a sheltered upbringing by the boomer generation. But its seriously messed up.

Penicillin was discovered by accident by the way, no research funding needed.

The fact you have to be disingenuous in almost every rebuttal you make, should be the first clue you are wrong. Or is it you simply do not understand Sarcasm?

 

[OverVolt]

The fact you have to be disingenuous in almost every rebuttal you make, should be the first clue you are wrong. Or is it you simply do not understand Sarcasm?

I'm actually sincere I think you are just using disingenuous wrong?

I didn't see them as very sarcastic. SSSnail's been at it for awhile. Trying to save face for the Atheist group? Thats the result of arguing with them for pages and it devolved pretty quickly.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I'm actually sincere I think you are just using disingenuous wrong?

I didn't see them as very sarcastic. SSSnail's been at it for awhile. Trying to save face for the Atheist group? Thats the result of arguing with them for pages and it devolved pretty quickly.

What "atheist group?"
Can you presented valid arguemtns...or are fallcies (as always)...the only defense that can be mustered for superstition?

You sound like a guy that would defend "moderate nazis"...

 

[OverVolt]

What "atheist group?"
Can you presented valid arguemtns...or are fallcies (as always)...the only defense that can be mustered for superstition?

You sound like a guy that would defend "moderate nazis"...

What fallacies? You are just riding the coat-tails of the other guy. I ignore the stupid comments as always. I wouldn't defend "moderate nazis" not that I even know what they are.

Terraforming planets is a fallacy. So is information singularity, and altruistic science. Science is altruistic... for now but that is due to the construct of religion/morals and not science.

 

[Lonbjerg]

What fallacies? You are just riding the coat-tails of the other guy.

I will spell it out for you...since you only repond with arguments from ignorance..and ad hominem.

W
H
A
T

Says: what

A
T
H
E
I
S
T

Says: atheist

G
R
O
U
P

Says: group.

You now combine the words into a sentence:

What ateist group?

Do we need to go lower, before you stop your dishonesty?

 

[OverVolt]

arguments from ignorance..and ad hominem.

You think like the other guy, get grouped with the other guy. That was kinda easy. I don't actually know what you believe, nor did you say. So its not my problem.

I'm guessing the Atheists on the defensive have no idea WTF to even say except omg wiki fallacies. I'm just assuming you're an Atheist until proven otherwise. Something logical or reasonable would be a good start instead of "omg wiki fallacies"

So lets break the quantum ice, are you an Atheist or not? Because as it stands right now, you are both an Atheist and not an Atheist at the same time.

You almost got me there, with the wiki fallacies and what not. Phew that was hard. Had to pull up wiki myself. Was a close'un! Someone whose read the bible can find wiki, oh shit this is going to be harder than usual guys!

 

[Lonbjerg]

You think like the other guy, get grouped with the other guy. That was kinda easy. I don't actually know what you believe, nor did you say. So its not my problem.

I'm guessing the Atheists on the defensive have no idea WTF to even say except omg wiki fallacies. I'm just assuming you're an Atheist until proven otherwise. Something logical or reasonable would be a good start instead of "omg wiki fallacies"

So lets break the quantum ice, are you an Atheist or not? Because as it stands right now, you are both an Atheist and not an Atheist at the same time.

You almost got me there, with the wiki fallacies and what not. Phew that was hard. Had to pull up wiki myself. Was a close'un!

No reply (intellectual dishonesty) followed up by fallacies (Simpel red herrings)...to cover up your own goal.

Nice.

I ask again:

What atheist group?

More lies to come?

 

[OverVolt]

No reply (intellectual dishonesty) followed up by fallacies (Simpel red herrings)...to cover up your own goal.

Nice.

I ask again:

What atheist group?

More lies to come?

I've noticed that Atheists like to place the burden of proof on other people. Maybe they're all just really lazy.

From the first couple pages we have

Geosurface, JonathanYoung,Shehateme,mnewsham,sandorski,CA19100,Jeff7,JohnOfSheffield,Soulcougher73

You never stated if you believe in God or not, so you can play the quantum "I do both" game, which isn't fair, honestly. And hopefully, simply gathering the list of people with Atheist sentiments in the first few pages shows that your point is uh... well what is your point exactly?

Like a typical Atheist I guess that argument is just "NO U PROVE IT" "iz fallacy from wiki see!? derp!" until people give up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Did I win yet?

 

[OverVolt]

How am I supposed to prove my honesty when you think I'm somehow dishonest, lol

And you can't answer a straightforward question.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I've noticed that Atheists like to place the burden of proof on other people. Maybe they're all just really lazy.

From the first couple pages we have

Geosurface, JonathanYoung,Shehateme,mnewsham,sandorski,CA19100,Jeff7,JohnOfSheffield,Soulcougher73

You never stated if you believe in God or not, so you can play the quantum "I do both" game, which isn't fair, honestly. And hopefully, simply gathering the list of people with Atheist sentiments in the first few pages shows that your point is uh... well what is your point exactly?

Like a typical Atheist I guess that argument is just "NO U PROVE IT" "iz fallacy from wiki see!? derp!" until people give up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Did I win yet?

Red herrings, ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam...you repley contains everything....except the documentation for this "atheist group" you talk about.

Unless you have strated the language...besides logic?

I ask you once again:

What atheist group?!

Will more lies follow...or will OverVolt change his modus operandi...and be honest for once...stay tuned.

(And funny how it always return the "reversing the burden of proof" in defense of superstition )

 

[OverVolt]

I guess you are just trying to argumentum ad nauseam me. I can do it too. This proves nothing dude.

Still won't state if you believe in God or not.

I do know what it is, you guys don't agree, but don't really have any basis for an argument. So just hit up that wiki fallacies page and see what sticks ad nauseam.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I guess you are just trying to argumentum ad nauseam me. I can do it too. This proves nothing dude.

Still won't state if you believe in God or not.

No, I am trying to get an HONEST answer from you...but that part seems impossible.

I am an atheist (hint-hint: The invisible pink unicorn as avatar).
Like most danes...but that still dosn't alter one tiny bit.

You know the expression "Herding cats"?

You seem to want to be DISHONEST..and lump all people with no faith...into one common group...just like religious fucktards adheer to one religion.

Dosn't work like that.

Just like the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof when it comes to superstion also fails.

Fallacies...all that can "defend" religion"....because the facts says otherwise.

Evolution is a fact and the bible lies about Adam & Eve...get over it...or live your life in intellectual dishonesty...like you do now.

 

[OverVolt]

The Old Testament isn't all that great. Lots of Lineage, that type of thing was important a long time ago to establish credibility. But not anymore.

The books in the New Testament are still pretty insightful. Religion has no place in a Biology book so I agree with the evolution arguments. I see it as a non-threat to religion though. The other guy was complaining so much about putting words in his mouth, lol. The same is done to me. I'm pretty sure the intelligent design folks are a minority, like PETA.