Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/2/09 07:48 PM, Brick-top wrote: This man seriously needs a psychologist because we don't want another Anthony Powell on our hands. Actually Shaggy acts very similar to Anthony so it brings much more concern.

Holy shit. It's like they're twins...

At 5/2/09 08:25 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Theists have a problem with using an individual theist's behavior as an indicator of the begaviour of all theists of the particular religion, when the behaviour is bad(fair enough), but not when it's good. : /

Michael Newdow, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and Edwin F. Kagin.

Now, let's see how quickly YOU distance yourself from those names. >:-D~

At 5/2/09 10:04 PM, Proteas wrote: Michael Newdow, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and Edwin F. Kagin.

Now, let's see how quickly YOU distance yourself from those names. >:-D~

They're all Atheists with WIki Articles but that doesn't make them any more or less of an Atheist nor does it make them a spokesmen for Atheists, nor does it makes them a representative for Atheists.

Great thing about us is we don't have established leaders who looks like the bad guy in star wars. Woo yippe (happy dance)

At 5/2/09 09:59 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5/2/09 07:48 PM, Brick-top wrote: This man seriously needs a psychologist because we don't want another Anthony Powell on our hands. Actually Shaggy acts very similar to Anthony so it brings much more concern.

Holy shit. It's like they're twins...

Now all we need to do is find out if Shaggy is a big fat guy who thinks woman belong in the kitchen. I was subscribed to Anthony for a while but he's had so many accounts I probably haven't seen all of his videos.

At 5/2/09 10:13 PM, Brick-top wrote: Great thing about us is we don't have established leaders who looks like the bad guy in star wars. Woo yippe (happy dance)

True, but you do have prominent figureheads in the media whom people can easily associate with your given belief system.

This what I call a perfect example of "shit goes both ways."

At 5/2/09 10:04 PM, Proteas wrote: Michael Newdow, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and Edwin F. Kagin.

Now, let's see how quickly YOU distance yourself from those names. >:-D~

That's true, but I also don't claim any association with totally cool atheists like... Gene Roddenberry.

I also don't want any of those freeloaders taking credit for how awesome I am. If I donate money to a charity, it's not because of atheism, it's because of I'm so great.

The cool thing about atheism is that it has nothing to do with anything.

At 5/2/09 03:08 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Seems the last bit there about testing and empirical data is at odds with the idea that, "There's no standards in nature for the greatness of a life's purpose."

Why? Just because you study the world around you, it doesn't mean you've somehow come up with the universal purpose scale.

And it seems... you reserve the right to say, "hey, your purpose is stupid."

Yes I sure do since I know no one can claim to know their purpose, if they have any.
Whatever purpose you choose, you do it for yourself. People can insult you for it all day long, but it's not like they're going to prove your purpose is objectively stupid.

It's just an opinion.

At 5/2/09 08:25 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/2/09 06:59 AM, poxpower wrote: In religion, it deeply matter WHICH explanation is true. Is it Allah? Is it Jesus? Is it Shiva?

Not necessarily. It may not be so clear because of all the wars, but the Quran and the Torah and the Bible more or less accept eachother.

Yeah, but it matters whether or not those things in the book actually are the explanation.
Regardless of every detail about them, if the stories aren't true, then the religion goes to shit.

No Jesus, no Christians.
No Big Bang? No big deal.

Yes. As long as they believe any life is valuable.

Why do you need to believe in a bigger thing watching you for that? Or that you have a purpose?
??

This is not really in favour of religion, but does indicate a higher considered value of life in religion.

I don't know if people who think this life is just a stepping stone to their glorious heaven eternity really do value life higher than people who think it's the only one they'll get.

In what way does thinking you have a purpose guarantee any given set of morals?

To achieve a goal, you must lay out some basic principles. It's natural that you don't eat a cake if you are supposed to bring it to someone.

???

I don't know if you have ever fully contemplated this in all of your actions. Because it is rather depressing.

So what if it's depressing?
I'm gonna die. That's way more depressing.

What does this have to do with morals or purpose?

Whatever purpose you want to your life, then go ahead, do that. No one can say "hey, your purpose is stupid". There's no standards in nature for the greatness of a life's purpose.

Are you being sarcastic now, or do you honestly believe this.
Because this is exactly my point.

Seems that your point was somehow about how we need to believe in a superior power to imbue us with morals and purpose and to make us value life.

I mean, it's pretty simple: no one has a purpose that is given by an outside force. Your purpose is what you want it to be. It only requires one thing: you.

At 5/2/09 08:25 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Everything you do in your life is just a coincidental electric and chemical charge in your brain. You don't fall in love with people because they are nice to you, or because you give a crap about them. It's all just pheromones. You're not special for them, for it would have been any other person who was at the right place at the right time.
I don't know if you have ever fully contemplated this in all of your actions. Because it is rather depressing.

Really? I find your view more depressing, that you need some sort of higher purpose for these things for them to have any meaning in your life.

Whether or not life and love are part of some greater scheme that has been laid out for us in some divine purpose, we are here and it is now. Why can't you appreciate love for what it is, rather than what it's supposed to be?

At 5/2/09 11:06 PM, Elfer wrote: Why can't you appreciate love for what it is, rather than what it's supposed to be?

Because he's trying to frame something that is abstract for what it really is in terms of the mechanical process. Isn't that the whole point of atheism; dispelling belief in the ephemeral and the abstract, and only believing only in the concrete?

That's all he's trying to do; he wants to see how far your willing to take the basic tenets of your philosophy.

At 5/2/09 10:58 PM, poxpower wrote: The cool thing about atheism is that it has nothing to do with anything.

Could you please explain what the hell that means... or provide some context as to what (other post) it may be addressing?

Why? Just because you study the world around you, it doesn't mean you've somehow come up with the universal purpose scale.

So "testing" and "empirical data" for "those [religious] idiots" wouldn't ideally dissuade them from living for God's purpose?

Yes I sure do since I know no one can claim to know their purpose, if they have any.

I'm pretty sure... "No one can say: hey, your purpose is stupid" was referring to "whatever purpose you want to your life," and not "outside-given purpose," if I'm following your original context correctly.

Where as this latest reply seems to be saying that no one can claim to know their "outside-given purpose."

Am I understanding this correctly so far?

Whatever purpose you choose, you do it for yourself.

And now we're back to a self-determined purpose.

So, what's actually stupid isn't the purpose, but labelling a self-determined purpose as objective and universal. Suppose someone adopts for themselves what they believe to be an objective purpose? Are they untouchable now because they're of the opinion that there is a universal purpose?

I guess I'm getting confused by your use of "no one can" and "people can" and when it's one or the other.

People can insult you for it all day long, but it's not like they're going to prove your purpose is objectively stupid.

It's just an opinion.

It all just seems very... opportunistic. That if you don't want to be touched you call it an opinion, and if you want to judge you forgo any establishment that what your refuting is subjective.

It's not like there's no basis for an opinion. You can split hairs over whether you're attacking an opinion or all the things it's based off of, but both methods are the same thing by different names.

If an opinion is derived from incorrect facts... isn't that a faulty opinion?

At 5/2/09 11:30 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/2/09 11:06 PM, Elfer wrote: Why can't you appreciate love for what it is, rather than what it's supposed to be?

Because he's trying to frame something that is abstract for what it really is in terms of the mechanical process. Isn't that the whole point of atheism; dispelling belief in the ephemeral and the abstract, and only believing only in the concrete?

That's all he's trying to do; he wants to see how far your willing to take the basic tenets of your philosophy.

And? Sure, in a technical sense, love may just be a few chemical reactions, and some brain activity that mimics obsessive compulsive disorder. However, since we're all humans here, we all know that the experiential nature of it is much more difficult to explain in technical terms, and that's the part that makes love special to us.

The point is, love is some pretty good stuff, regardless of whether or not it is actually magic.

At 5/3/09 01:49 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Could you please explain what the hell that means... or provide some context as to what (other post) it may be addressing?

My point is mainly that all atheism is is the lack of belief in God, so anything you derive from that, be it love or genocide, well that's all on you. You can't pin it on the atheist community.

Here's an easy trick to remember this: think about all the things you can blame the non-bowlers for ( people who don't play bowling). That's exactly the same number of things you can blame atheists for doing.

So "testing" and "empirical data" for "those [religious] idiots" wouldn't ideally dissuade them from living for God's purpose?

Science won't ever help you find what the purpose of life is.
If there is one.
( there isn't one )

Where as this latest reply seems to be saying that no one can claim to know their "outside-given purpose."

Basically it's like this: I can say that Batman Returns is a shitty movie without having to prove scientifically that it's a shitty movie because when I say it's shitty, it's understood that it's my own opinion and not facts.

It's the same with a purpose. Since I know there's no objective way to gauge the legitimacy of a purpose in life, anything I can say for or against any person's self-ordained life goal is just my own opinion.

Hope that's clear enough.

So, what's actually stupid isn't the purpose, but labelling a self-determined purpose as objective and universal.

Yes.

Suppose someone adopts for themselves what they believe to be an objective purpose? Are they untouchable now because they're of the opinion that there is a universal purpose?

No, they're tards.

If an opinion is derived from incorrect facts... isn't that a faulty opinion?

I have no idea. All I know is that people don't have a clue what the purpose of existence is and anyone you see walking around pretending like they do, you have a free license to make fun of.

I mean, if we don't laugh at people for being wrong, how are they going to learn?

I didn't say other groups, including atheists don't do it. But:

1. I've been noticing how MUCH theists seem to have been doing it lately
2. How often is there an extremeist Atheist killing people in the name of atheism?
3. I've never argued that so and so is an atheist, therefore atheists are good.
4. Since when do atheists often claim that they give to charities etc.

At 5/3/09 03:27 AM, poxpower wrote: My point is mainly that all atheism is is the lack of belief in God, so anything you derive from that, be it love or genocide, well that's all on you. You can't pin it on the atheist community.

The purist definition doesn't match the application (assuming the atheist is familiar with the concept of God).

It's not necessarily that things are derived from atheism. It's more a matter that atheism is derived from things. To say then that those things exist outside of any other context besides atheism is silly. Empiricism doesn't just exist to prove atheism viable. (Empiricism also generally doesn't cause genocide).

Even conciliatory arguments (arguments that fill in the blanks) aren't completely derived from atheism itself, but also from the principles that led the individual to atheism.

Rather than empiricism >> atheism >> love. I'm looking at something more like love << empiricism >> atheism. (Though it's a mix of both, and I'm not saying empiricism leads to love.)

Here's an easy trick to remember this: think about all the things you can blame the non-bowlers for ( people who don't play bowling). That's exactly the same number of things you can blame atheists for doing.

Belief or belief-inherent-in-rejection-of-another-
belief plays a role in anyone's major life decisions. Besides, group-A-vs-not-group-A isn't exactly a parallel to theist-vs-not-theist considering the way most of those discussions go.

Science won't ever help you find what the purpose of life is.
If there is one.
( there isn't one )

It does help you define an objective purpose as inexistent or irrelevant.

It does help you weigh the variables involved in a subjective purpose.

When you say "we DO need to push our crazy beliefs of "testing" and "empirical data" on those idiots" you are seeking to realign their purpose aren't you?

Hope that's clear enough.

It's getting there.

Though regarding batman and purpose. I think it'd be fair for someone to demand some kind of supporting arguments for either stance, whether or not they're strictly scientific. I also think it'd be fair for someone, having heard your reasoning, to pick it apart - even though the reasoning leads up to an opinion.

I have no idea. All I know is that people don't have a clue what the purpose of existence is and anyone you see walking around pretending like they do, you have a free license to make fun of.

Do we also have a free license to make fun of people who walk around with a subjective purpose (which they acknowledge as subjective) if it's based on shitty logic or shitty information?

(I know I'm beating a dead horse at this point but I want to be sure on this part.)

I mean, if we don't laugh at people for being wrong, how are they going to learn?

So an opinion can be wrong then?

At 5/2/09 10:58 PM, poxpower wrote: No Big Bang? No big deal.

That would work for recent theories. If someone were to prove there were no atoms or elementary particles, science would have to start all over again.
Zeno's indivisibility paradox took a bite out of mathematical/reality constructs, so we've chosen to remain ignorant. Some, amongst many Weyl, have tried to restate math so that the paradox were explainable, but to catch up on eons of research is a very arduous task.

Why do you need to believe in a bigger thing watching you for that? Or that you have a purpose?

It helps. If you're fighting a war, you're not going to shoot at your people. It's a stupid thing to do.

I don't know if people who think this life is just a stepping stone to their glorious heaven eternity really do value life higher than people who think it's the only one they'll get.

They generally do. See abortion/euthanasia debates, even on suicide.

To achieve a goal, you must lay out some basic principles. It's natural that you don't eat a cake if you are supposed to bring it to someone.

See the soldiers above.
If you have to bring a cake to someone, you can do two things:
1. You eat the cake yourself because it looks delicious.
2. You bring it to the person you are supposed to bring it to.
The second option is generally more compelling, since you have the goal of bringing the cake safely to the other person. If they just handed you the cake without telling you you had to bring it to someone, the first one is the most likely thing that will happen.

What does this have to do with morals or purpose?

If you have no purpose, you have no motivation. If you have no motivation you have no need to commit to certain rules.
But I'm not only talking about religious purpose here, but about purpose in general.

Seems that your point was somehow about how we need to believe in a superior power to imbue us with morals and purpose and to make us value life.

I mean that purpose is necessary to achieve things. So it's not stupid that people choose religion and a higher purpose to account for their actions.

At 5/3/09 05:41 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Rather than empiricism >> atheism >> love. I'm looking at something more like love << empiricism >> atheism. (Though it's a mix of both, and I'm not saying empiricism leads to love.)

no idea what you're talking about.

Besides, group-A-vs-not-group-A isn't exactly a parallel to theist-vs-not-theist considering the way most of those discussions go.

Still no idea what you're talking about :O

Science won't ever help you find what the purpose of life is.

It does help you define an objective purpose as inexistent or irrelevant.

Not really. It's mainly a matter of philosophy.
There can't be an end purpose to anything because you'd be left asking what the purpose of the purpose is.

So yeah, no matter what you could ever possibly discover with science, it will always remain a purposeless existence.

In fact, try it now. Try to even imagine a scenario where we have a final purpose where you can't tack on another "what's the purpose of that?".

When you say "we DO need to push our crazy beliefs of "testing" and "empirical data" on those idiots" you are seeking to realign their purpose aren't you?

Do we also have a free license to make fun of people who walk around with a subjective purpose (which they acknowledge as subjective) if it's based on shitty logic or shitty information?

Yes. There's basically not any bad reason for making fun of people.

So an opinion can be wrong then?

Only if it's different from mine.

woops there was this one too..

At 5/3/09 05:52 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/2/09 10:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

That would work for recent theories. If someone were to prove there were no atoms or elementary particles, science would have to start all over again.

Yeah but it wouldn't change anything :o
No one would have some crisis of faith over it. No one would be all like "I must try to convince people that atoms are real, no matter the cost!".
Scientists wouldn't give a shit, they'd just think it's interesting and they'd keep on doing research. In fact, they'd probably love it.

A Christian is not out to prove there's no Jesus because it would basically mean his entire life was based around a stupid lie and he's invested all his emotions and thoughts into a sham. No one would want to face that.

But again, scientists? Wouldn't care. Their personality isn't dependent on the explanations science offers.

Why do you need to believe in a bigger thing watching you for that? Or that you have a purpose?

It helps. If you're fighting a war, you're not going to shoot at your people. It's a stupid thing to do.

I can find a million reasons to shoot people that have nothing to do with God.

I don't know if people who think this life is just a stepping stone to their glorious heaven eternity really do value life higher than people who think it's the only one they'll get.

They generally do. See abortion/euthanasia debates, even on suicide.

What's a life really worth to you if you think people don't really die? Philosophical question....
It's not like there's an actual way to figure out who places more value in life than other people.

Like, do doctors value life highly because they save them?
What about a guy who freezes his corpse in case he can be reanimated after death? Sounds like that dude values life a lot more than a doctor who lets people die.

Btw, this will be really interesting if we ever manage to extend life a LOT. You can bet your ass that Christians won't let the chance to live 1000 years slip by. They'll be the first in front of the line to get that treatment and they'll have a bunch of bible quotes ready for you to justify why Jesus actually wanted them to live to be 1 million years old before going to heaven.

Shit, they already do it today. If they have a heart attack, they expect to be saved, even though they pretend they believe they're going to heaven when they die.

Yeah right. At least I believe muslims who blow themselves up.
k little sidetracked here... haha

I mean that purpose is necessary to achieve things. So it's not stupid that people choose religion and a higher purpose to account for their actions.

They can if they want, but they can't claim that it's THE purpose.
Which is what they claim,
"God wants this, God wants that" etc.

It's ok to make up whatever goals you want in life but at the end of the day it just your choice, it's not a divine order or anything written in the stars.

At 5/2/09 10:20 PM, Proteas wrote: True, but you do have prominent figureheads in the media whom people can easily associate with your given belief system.

Who the media broadcasts about has nothing to do with Atheism. Just because an Atheist is outspoken and gets attention from it doesn't give them any title which has indication for leadership.

At 5/3/09 06:18 AM, poxpower wrote:

Well I know I said I wasn't going to bitch about atheism but I'm just going to bitch about the stupidity of Pox's reply.

Yeah but it wouldn't change anything :o
No one would have some crisis of faith over it. No one would be all like "I must try to convince people that atoms are real, no matter the cost!".
Scientists wouldn't give a shit, they'd just think it's interesting and they'd keep on doing research. In fact, they'd probably love it.

So what do atoms have to do with atheism or theism?
I think you're talking bakwards, if people denied the existence of atoms, you forget that not all people look at things the same way, what you call atoms, somone else could call it something like "omega spheres" or some shit n have totally different explanations for what they do, does tat mean theyre wrong, no it just means they look at the same thing in a different way as pretty much everyone does, if everyone saw things the same way then that would leave no room for others that may be better....
And with atoms, ofcourse if one group or nation didn't believe they existed, they would be pretty surpised when they see an atom bomb smashing through their captial n not know how they made it, so the consequences of not believing in something can be great, I'm glad we asablished that.

A Christian is not out to prove there's no Jesus because it would basically mean his entire life was based around a stupid lie and he's invested all his emotions and thoughts into a sham. No one would want to face that.

So Pox, are you out to prove that you're in fact going to Hell and not exploiting every loophole to justify your own religious beliefs and damn everyone elses?

But again, scientists? Wouldn't care. Their personality isn't dependent on the explanations science offers.

Which is why there is a good diversity among scientists when it comes to personal beliefs, I think you've just admitted that beliefs don't totally control people n that all your ranting about how religion kills people was all a big fat joke n that people have the will to choose to do what they want, and I know you deny free will which is funny since you just said science doesn't dictate people's actions, whatever science you're talking about (its also funny how you talk about science as if it mean anything to you or your own beliefs in which it doesn't)

I can find a million reasons to shoot people that have nothing to do with God.

And I suppose doing anything but self defence is all those government rascals fault not letting you get your way with shooting people for no reason, maybe you should go cry about it. lol

What's a life really worth to you if you think people don't really die? Philosophical question....
It's not like there's an actual way to figure out who places more value in life than other people.

Well with people like Budhists er people who believe in reincarnation, they have the luxury of the belief they'll be able to live more lifetimes here whereas most religions bleieve in a total exit from this world n dimension er whatever, so theres alot more distance with most religions, like you mgiht cry/feel sad when a family member is going away on a business trip or something similar, it would be a more extreme feeling when a person leaves entirely to who knows where.

Like, do doctors value life highly because they save them?
What about a guy who freezes his corpse in case he can be reanimated after death? Sounds like that dude values life a lot more than a doctor who lets people die.

Well a doctors job is to save people's lives, obviously if the doctor cares then the chance for the person to live is much higher than a person who doesn't give a shit or even wants them to die, which is a pretty fucked up thing for you to bring up.

Btw, this will be really interesting if we ever manage to extend life a LOT. You can bet your ass that Christians won't let the chance to live 1000 years slip by. They'll be the first in front of the line to get that treatment and they'll have a bunch of bible quotes ready for you to justify why Jesus actually wanted them to live to be 1 million years old before going to heaven.

I really doubt that anything in this world could ever do that, n guess what I'm acting like you now, there very well could be but I haven't seen it so I don't believe the possibility for it exists at all, buuuuuurned!

Shit, they already do it today. If they have a heart attack, they expect to be saved, even though they pretend they believe they're going to heaven when they die.

.......so you're saying people "pretend" to believe in an afterlife? You totally stole that line from me, you basterd!!!!

Yeah right. At least I believe muslims who blow themselves up.
k little sidetracked here... haha

Muslims who blow themselves up what? .......wtf

They can if they want, but they can't claim that it's THE purpose.
Which is what they claim,
"God wants this, God wants that" etc.

Then maybe Pox, maybe you should follow my lead and stop bitching since you have pretty much admitted just now that you don't care what people believe in as long as they don't push it onto you, you must first refrain from pushing your own beliefs onto other as well.....

It's ok to make up whatever goals you want in life but at the end of the day it just your choice, it's not a divine order or anything written in the stars.

Funny thing, who are you to claim to be the one to decide how people see things?
But if you were simply stating your opinion then aight, doesn't bother me 8P

At 5/3/09 02:54 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Well I know I said I wasn't going to bitch about atheism but I'm just going to bitch about the stupidity of Pox's reply.

Newgrounds approves this post.

I think everyone will agree.

At 5/3/09 10:30 PM, TheRadicalOne wrote: I thought he said he wasn't posting in this thread anymore?

He said this:

Man I don't think I even need to continue this stupid topic anymore

Well I know I said I wasn't going to bitch about atheism but I'm just going to bitch about the stupidity of Pox's reply.

Earlier to this he said he insults Atheists because some do it to Christians. I informed him I can insult Christians for the same reasons. He never replied to that so I think that's what he's going to stop doing considering it can backfire.

However if he keeps up his antics he's broken a verbal agreement and can be called on it every time he does it.

At 5/3/09 05:52 AM, poxpower wrote: no idea what you're talking about.

You said...

"My point is mainly that all atheism is is the lack of belief in God, so anything you derive from that [. . .]"

But atheism also has a strong relationship with the things that it is derived from.

An extension to an atheist (non)belief system doesn't necessarily mean that the extension is derived from atheism.

Still no idea what you're talking about :O

You example with bowlers compares group-A (bowlers) to not-group-A (not-bowlers).

The parallel doesn't carry to theism-vs-atheism unless you're sticking to a purist definition of atheism. And sticking to a purist definition of atheism is disingenuous.

Not really. It's mainly a matter of philosophy.
There can't be an end purpose to anything because you'd be left asking what the purpose of the purpose is.

You've decontextualized "ultimate purpose." By appending "ultimate purpose" with "of life" you set a limit on the scope of "ultimate."

We're talking about "the ultimate purpose of life," so your infinite regression doesn't apply.

God (or some list of things God has defined) has(have) been identified as the ultimate purpose of life. This is not subject to your above philosophical argument unless you expand the context. It may be subject to other philosophical arguments, but it is definitely subject to a qualification of God as scientifically irrelevant.

At 5/4/09 01:11 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

An extension to an atheist (non)belief system doesn't necessarily mean that the extension is derived from atheism.

Your point being?

The parallel doesn't carry to theism-vs-atheism unless you're sticking to a purist definition of atheism.

You mean the only actual one which is "no belief in God"?
?? I wasn't aware there were more definitions.

We're talking about "the ultimate purpose of life," so your infinite regression doesn't apply.

Ok then, give me any purpose you think could possibly be the purpose of life and I'll see if I can still ask "so what's the point of that?" on top of it.

God (or some list of things God has defined) has(have) been identified as the ultimate purpose of life.

By morons, yes, that is correct.

At 5/4/09 05:06 AM, poxpower wrote:

God (or some list of things God has defined) has(have) been identified as the ultimate purpose of life.

By morons, yes, that is correct.

Do you think that just because you have more posts than most people you're allowed to call people "morons"? God is a logical concept because it allows you to think about how we are not here simply because. To say that life has no purpose and that the end of civilization means nothing to you is illogical.

I am annoyed at people like you who honestly think you're so much smarter than us just because you don't believe in God. Yes, religion doesn't make any sense, but neither does atheism. Religion is a way of people finding meaning in their lives because they allow themselves to be happy through their belief in higher being. It's not a matter of what you believe in, it's what you do with it.

I'm no fan of atheism, but I'd never call someone a "moron" for believing in it, even if I don't believe it. It's people like you who enforce bigotry and allow us not to settle our differences through kind words.

At 5/4/09 05:06 AM, poxpower wrote: Your point being?

"My point is mainly that all atheism is is the lack of belief in God, so anything you derive from [atheism, anything from which atheism is derived, and anything derived from that which derives atheism] be it love or genocide, well that's all on you."

Well... that reads differently.

You mean the only actual one which is "no belief in God"?
?? I wasn't aware there were more definitions.

Just waiting for me to get frustrated and give up at this point eh?

Posed the question "if god," and responding "without god," requires from any logical person a qualification of god beyond his/her/its basic definition. (like the qualification of God as irrelevant)

Your bowlers vs non-bowlers analogy only works if atheism is only "lack of belief." In application, it's not.

Ok then, give me any purpose you think could possibly be the purpose of life and I'll see if I can still ask "so what's the point of that?" on top of it.

Ok... read slower this time...

I say, "the remote is somewhere in this room."
You buy a remote from Best Buy, bring it to me, and say, "I found this remote somewhere."

I say... well... the subject of the conversation as been, "the ultimate purpose of life." The context is bound by "of life." We're not talking about the ultimate purpose of everything. Therefore, any purpose beyond the scope of what we are responsible for in life, is outside the context of the "ultimate purpose of life". Your argument is out of context.

Your argument is like saying we can't measure 12 inches because we can't reach an infinite distance from 0.

God (or some list of things God has defined) has(have) been identified as the ultimate purpose of life.

By morons, yes, that is correct.

Maybe you missed it...

It is not subject to your philosophical argument.
It is definitely subject to a qualification of God as scientifically irrelevant.

At 5/3/09 03:27 AM, poxpower wrote: ( there isn't one )

Nihilist, much?

I mean, if we don't laugh at people for being wrong, how are they going to learn?

Because you can attract more flies with honey than you can vinegar (old Southern saying). Basically; if all you're doing is poking fun and laughing people for their differences, you give them no reason to pay attention to you or take your opinion's seriously. You could be the smartest atheist in existence at this point, pox, and I could care less because to me you're the atheist equivalent of Archie Bunker in the way you approach the issue.

And seeing as how we've had this discussion before, you're next response will probably be something to the effect of "Well I'm just giving them a taste of their own medicine" or some shit, which basically equals to fighting fire with fire instead of fighting fire with water... so on and so forth...

At 5/3/09 02:12 PM, Brick-top wrote: Who the media broadcasts about has nothing to do with Atheism. Just because an Atheist is outspoken and gets attention from it doesn't give them any title which has indication for leadership.

Quick recap;

Atheist; A muslim just blew up a KFC
Theist; HEY! Not all muslims are bad! My neighbor's a muslim and he gives me candy!

Theist; Michael Newdow, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and Edwin F. Kagin.
Atheist; They are not representitive of Atheists and not our elected representitives etc etc etc

My point was that you're just as guilty as a theist for distancing yourself from extremist factions of your own philosophy. In short, you think your shit doesn't stink.

At 5/4/09 11:16 AM, Proteas wrote: My point was that you're just as guilty as a theist for distancing yourself from extremist factions of your own philosophy. In short, you think your shit doesn't stink.

Not quite the same.

Most brands of theism have a canon endorsing "extremist" behavior.

There is no canon for atheism. And if you consider science to be the atheist canon, there's not much moral code in there.

At 5/4/09 11:23 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: There is no canon for atheism.

True, but there is a core belief that you all share; disbelief in a higher power. That's all it takes to be considered an atheist, and as such, it's the only thing that ties you to such extremists. If you want to distance yourself from such people, the only thing you can claim is that you yourself do not chose to excercise your philosophy in such a way, but that's about all you can do. They're still atheists, just as much as you are.

But... this "no canon" argument has me thinking... since there is no canon to speak of for belief... would that not mean that atheism is fractured into many more branches of belief than theistic religions of the world? I ask this, because such a statement would imply that each atheist would subscribe to a philosophic viewpoint that would then be uniquely theirs, and since 2.3 percent of the world's population is atheist, that menas there's roughly 115 trillion some odd atheists in the world...

hm... maybe I'm just reading to much into that statement.

i'm not sure i'm understanding the issue with the theist/atheist generalized statement/answer thing happening here.

person a: all these people are evil because one/a lot of them did something. (generalization)
person b: nuh-uh, i know one of these people and hes a good guy. (not a generalization)

why is person b's statement not a generalization and a valid counterpoint? because he isn't applying the goodness of his friend to others like his friend, hes simply providing an example discrediting person a's statement that all (or most [though if most: saying one person is good doesn't get you very far]) of a certain people are bad.
maybe i'm talking about something completely irrelevant.

Did (do) the native Americans subscribe to a basic canon as well, or is an atheistic viewpoint advantagous in that no canon may possibly exist to supplicate the (non-) belief that it supposedly is?

I always thought a disbelief in something qualified at least as part of a canon, if not the entire defining characteristic when it comes to atheism.

How would an atheist view drug-induced spirit journeys? Is soul searching such an abhorrence and offense to atheists to merit the spite and foolishness running rampant around here?

When it gets down to the get down, how we all go around finding our souls is what makes us unique. We all build differing approaches to problems, and as long as our pooling of knowledge and resources remains beneficial, who gives a fuck whether or not you think God-fearing men and women are idiots; it only exposes your own smelly, yellow underbelly.

Underbelly.