Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 6/26/07 04:10 AM, TigerDemon wrote: To all those that this post pissed off: Your own medication is bitter is it not? This post was in line with many of the posts by people that have not religion around here attacking others for having a belief system. I used the same wide brush to paint my picture that they did. I dont really care about what you personally believe or do not believe that lies with you. Though I dont need to agree with your thoughts on life. I wouldnt call you stupid for your convictions even if I inwardly think you are. The whole point of this post was to show how foolish you can be and well it did a good job of that considering most of you called me christian when I said I was not and have the pagan club in my sig.

So instead of sitting down and discussing thing rationally, instead of being calm and thick skinned, you through more gas on the fire in the hopes it will burn it self out faster? The tactic you’ve tired to employ only works under cretin conditions, and requires careful crafting, your OP dose not meat either qualification.

As for people being ether illiterate, or simply ignorant I agree.

At 6/26/07 09:57 AM, TigerDemon wrote:

However there are some beliefs out there that do sound pretty damn foolish. For example the whole pastafarian (yes I know its made up but then again I think most if not all religions are made up by man to connect with the divine.) deal sounds fucking insane. However I cant prove that its wrong so I cant make fun of them, even if inwardly I am always going to find in foolish.

Pastafarianism was made for the purpose of convincing people how ludicrous both ID and creationism are. There is no one (that I know of at lest) who actually practices Pastafarianism, most just bring it out when the religious nuts come out in force. Personally I prefer discordianism (Blessed be her holey hooves!).

---

At 6/25/07 05:21 AM, TigerDemon wrote: Ok look I get that some people like to deny the idea that there is a higer being out there even though the evidence that some higer power had to have a hand in the creation of this world stares them in the face daily.

Evidence? Could you provide an example of that which I couldn't shamelessly tear apart?

Sure go ahead and live life in a manner that I think is blind. However dont keep crying about how dumb those of us with faith are, about what evil religion has caused. For all the ills that religions have caused over time it is done more good. It gives hope and a meaning to life.

To meaning to life is to live it. Constantly hoping for something better devoids life of its meaning.

Because of religion many peoples lives have been turned around for the better. Also do you see any atheists feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless? Nope and ya dont see people taking care of others in the name of nothing do you?

Really?

So please atheists wake up and leave those of us that find meaning in something alone and go back to your blind hollow exsistance.

See, the ironic thing about your argument is the fact that you whine about atheists being insulting to theists and then accuse them of leading a "blind hollow existence". In my opinion, happiness and spiritual fulfillment don't come from basing your life around a possibly nonexistent hyperbeing, but from a state of relative freedom and using that freedom to your advantage. As an atheist I appreciate life for what it is rather than constantly hoping for something better, insisting that I am under the care of a religion-specific, personal god, and frankly, that's how I like it.

---

At 6/26/07 03:50 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

...and those who can't do math.

What are you implying here? That you don’t truly believe that there are only two types of people, or simply leaving an opening through which to retreat if the need arises?

Um... it's a joke, dude. :P

A riff (and a clever one, I have to admit) on the old 'There are only 3 types of people in the world: those who can do math and those who can't" joke.

---

At 6/25/07 05:21 AM, TigerDemon wrote: Ok look I get that some people like to deny the idea that there is a higer being out there even though the evidence that some higer power had to have a hand in the creation of this world stares them in the face daily. Sure go ahead and live life in a manner that I think is blind. However dont keep crying about how dumb those of us with faith are, about what evil religion has caused. For all the ills that religions have caused over time it is done more good. It gives hope and a meaning to life. Because of religion many peoples lives have been turned around for the better. Also do you see any atheists feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless? Nope and ya dont see people taking care of others in the name of nothing do you? Now I may be a pagan with more or less my own belief system and yea I am not a big fan of many sects of the Abrahamic religions but I respect them enough to say that thier belief might just be valid... for them that is. I dont go around trying to prove how dumb what they believe is. Unless they say some seriously dumb ass shit in a fight with me or insult my choice of religion that is. I mean hey I am human. So please atheists wake up and leave those of us that find meaning in something alone and go back to your blind hollow exsistance.

;
I also do not have a problem with atheists total conviction that a higher power (god(s) ) don't exist.
There is a great deal of truth to your post of a religion being necessary in many people's lives.

The problem I see with most organized religions is their single minded pursuit that "this & only this religion" is the correct way to believe/worship god(s).
This terrible belief is why there has been so much bloodshed by man against his fellow man.

I don't follow your statement that 'some higher power has created the universe & it stares us in the face each day.'
Do you mean the almost constant fact of non stop warfare somewhere on this planet?
The fact that parents are murdering their own loved ones every day?
That killing someone of a different religion is somehow ok, after all their belief is in a "different "god !!!
OR are you speaking about geological/geographical vistas, the power of weather systems, the beauty of sunrise & sunsets.

I cannot reconcile the good religion does for people , against all the bad that religions do to people.
SO to be clear; If your religion does or causes to be done anything detrimental or bad to any other person, no matter their sex,color,religious belief's ,or disbelief's,their sexual orientation, no matter how much good it does ,it fails in its attempts to help raise it members to the divine.

I may not be an atheist, neither am I a member of any 'religious' group or belief. My life is far from hollow, I am definately not blind, by learning to see is why I have turned from the religion I was born into.

As for being 'dumb' by having faith, for me I guess it depends on what you are having 'faith' in.

If your faith is in something that is based on lies & misinformation, how can placing 'faith' in that be of any good to you, or the other followers of your religion?
For me it can't , so then it is automatically dumb & a waste of your/my time.

The more I look around the more clearly I see that religion long ago became a tool for men to use to control the masses, it is still being used that way today.
You only have to look at the absolute distain & hatred that many members of organized religions openly spew at others, different from themselves to see just how twisted 'Religions' have become.

Atheists are not the problem, they are the whipping post.
By refusing to pick a side they are now 'fair game' for anyone with any other belief.
You might want to check out some of the famous Atheists past/present, you might be surprised how many of these 'godless bastards' did great things for humanity as a whole.

---

Actually, I hate people like you. You're the one who was brainwashed by your parents into thinking you need God in your life. Sure, there could be a higher power. It is utterly false that it is the god most Christians worship.

---

At 6/26/07 03:50 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 6/25/07 10:28 PM, afliXion wrote:

Blind hollow existence?

I would tend to agree.

Why? Personally I’m very fulfilled in my life. I’ve done and continue to do many charitable works in my community, and I have several close friend. My eyes and mind are always open, and I welcome change and challenge. What in my life seams hollow or blind? Or do you simply agree because of stereotypes?

I do not pretend to know a thing about your life. I will assume what you have said is true. I think that is great. That's why I said 'I would TEND to agree.'
I have had some friends that were atheists and we got along fine. Just the fast majority of non-believers I have met have been quite different.

The only place creation “science” is flourishing is in the minds of the plebs, and even there it seams to be dwindling, all be it slowly. While the bible may be a book of morals it isn’t a book of science and shouldn’t be treated as such.

If you think its only in the mind of 'plebs' then you obviously have not been paying attention to what has been going on in this country lately.
The Bible is definetly not a science book, but when it does make scientific statements (all of which can/have been tested/observed) they are stunning in their accuracy.

Hollow and meaningless to live life for itself? That is the definition of hollow and meaningless.

Hollow:
Without substance or character
Devoid of truth or validity

Which of these are displayed by his argument? I see nether, as I know nothing of his life.

Easy, its circular reasoning really.
Living life just to live for life is like writing a book just to put letters on a page.
As for the first definition: Like Sarte said 'we are condemned to freedom.' So true. To live just for life's sake is pointless sense all are given life, and with this blessing it is our responsibility to leave our own mark on it, our own character.
Sense living for life just for life is so circular, and so untasteful, it is of course devoid of any truth. For if it is just your life, then who are you to enforce any truth on any other life?
It is completely invalid to live for your own life and then try to justify a truth.

Ha, the last part of this paragraph about motivations of peoples actions.... whenever an atheist says this it always makes me laugh.
First of all, motivations are always hidden. The acts a person committs is an outward sign of an inward pulse. Motivations being inward then, it is impossible to tell what a persons true motivations are. I don't know about you, but most people have enough trouble deciphering their own heart, but then again you do have omniscience so I guess you can know...

Psalm 44:21
"Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart."

Why use bible quote against someone who obviously questions the very tome you’re quoting? It doesn’t back up your argument at all and if anything reduces it as you only show one fundamental reference point.

I was not using it against him, I was using it merely to demonstrate that while atheists (and even Christians) may claim acts of righteousness and altruism and such, but one simply can not testify to knowing as to WHY someone did the given act. If you fail to see how that verse applies to this, then you are lost.
'One fundamental reference point' ?? How many reference points do you suppose there are on a persons heart, or your own heart?

In my humble opinion, those could all be synomous terms.
There are only two kinds of people: those who are saved, and those are not.

Many, even in the world of Christianity would disagree with you. Though in all fairness I think Makaio over stepped a bit here.

Oh the world of Christianity today... See Mat. 7:21-23 If you haven't noticed by now, I was not speaking for the world. I was speaking only the truth of the Bible.

...and those who can't do math.

What are you implying here? That you don’t truly believe that there are only two types of people, or simply leaving an opening through which to retreat if the need arises?

no. lol. It was a joke.

At 6/25/07 11:27 PM, afliXion wrote:

You are doing whatever you want just because someone didn't tell you to do it.

To be a truly good person, one should be capable of doing good works with out being told too, or forced too. In fact it is in our very nature to be good to each other (at lest to a degree).

I agree with both those statements entirely. However, it would be impossible for ANYONE to achieve such charitable acts without some instruction. If this is not so, explain to me why we must teach children NOT to steal, and not to hurt another child, and not to cheat, and not to
lie, and so on.

If atheists are so introspective as they claim, then they should be able to see the good in any commandment, no matter who said it before.

How can one see goodness where good doesn’t exist? If you mean reason, then yes most atheist who have read the history of the time period and the nature of it can see the reasoning behind the various commandments, but they’re not always good?

You are stretching what I said to far. Leaving the context of what was said before of what Maiko said might have helped.
When I said that it was in response to a claim (implication to) that just because something had been said previously, then a good person who lived his life for his life shouldn't have to follow it.

And dude, remember the golden rule: Do onto others as you would have done onto you. Do you really want people to attack your religion the way you attacked Atheism?

What? Dude, we were just having a healthy debate about religion! You think i attacked him??
That statement left me completely baffled as I didn't fathom someone could be that weak.
Oh and, if you haven't noticed, people do attack Christianity on a daily basis. And as long as you are quoting verses to me, quote this one:

People attack atheism daily, people attack Islam daily, it seams that all religious philosophies are attacked in some way daily. Why should Christianity be any different, why should it get special treatment? Especially given that many initial (though again not all) attacks come from zealous Christians?

This time you have the context, and yet you still completely missed the point.
I was told that I was 'attacking' atheism merely for DEBATING someone.
NOWHERE did I imply that Christians should get some sort of 'special treatment.'

Mat. 5 11-12
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad..."

Personally I like Psalms 137:9
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

First of all, did you not just accuse me of quoting a verse that had nothing to do with the argument?? Did you not just accuse me of saying something extra just incase I need to escape?? The verse you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You hypocrite.
Anyway, you took that verse so far out of context its sick. Read the rest of that nine verse Psalm, and you will see that 'thy little ones' is referring to the men of Babylon who took Israel captive, and were later destroyed in war. Geez.

---

At 6/26/07 05:59 PM, afliXion wrote:

The only place creation “science” is flourishing is in the minds of the plebs, and even there it seams to be dwindling, all be it slowly. While the bible may be a book of morals it isn’t a book of science and shouldn’t be treated as such.

If you think its only in the mind of 'plebs' then you obviously have not been paying attention to what has been going on in this country lately.
The Bible is definetly not a science book, but when it does make scientific statements (all of which can/have been tested/observed) they are stunning in their accuracy.

For instance: God creating the Universe in seven days. And it being omnipotent, yet needing a day (in Earth time, I assume) to rest.

But I don't want to get into a debate about religion, as to be honest it makes me perfectly happy that you believe. Good for you.

Just don't push it on me, or judge me because I don't.

Hollow and meaningless to live life for itself? That is the definition of hollow and meaningless.

Hollow:
Without substance or character
Devoid of truth or validity

Which of these are displayed by his argument? I see nether, as I know nothing of his life.

Easy, its circular reasoning really.
Living life just to live for life is like writing a book just to put letters on a page.

Right, what's wrong with doing that?

My theory of the whole "point" issue is that there may not be a point in the conventional term of the word, according to it as being in the human mind, as everything we do seems to have a point except what we do it for. It's not that there is no point, it's that we are attributing the need for a point to something that this cannot be attributed to.

Just because I can't identify a point doesn't mean life is meaningless and hollow. I love what is, and live life because of this. I don't need to create some higher being to make life worth living. Sure, there is a lot of bad, a LOT of bad, but it's too easy to notice the bad. It's a challenge to pay attention and hold on to the good, and makes life much more satisfying.

As for the first definition: Like Sarte said 'we are condemned to freedom.' So true. To live just for life's sake is pointless sense all are given life, and with this blessing it is our responsibility to leave our own mark on it, our own character.

I'm afraid I'm not following your logic here. You are saying that because we are given life, to live it just to live it is pointless because we live? And thus we need to leave our own mark on it?

How does this have anything to do with atheism? Almost every atheist I've had contact with, including myself, have our own philosophies that we live by. Atheism does not necessarily mean nihilism.

Sense living for life just for life is so circular, and so untasteful, it is of course devoid of any truth. For if it is just your life, then who are you to enforce any truth on any other life?

It's circular? It's "untasteful"? Pardon me for pointing out how horridly subjective that statement was. Life is very tasteful.

And besides, you are living the same life as me, with the same essential truths. How is mine any less truthful than yours just because you believe in a higher power? In your mind, it may be less truthful, but in the end truth is entirely relative to one's own mind.

And concerning who are we to enforce any truth on any other life, we might say the same to you given my above statement.

It is completely invalid to live for your own life and then try to justify a truth.

How so? We are required to live for something that we don't believe exists for us to truly exist?

no. lol. It was a joke.

Well played.

At 6/25/07 11:27 PM, afliXion wrote:

To be a truly good person, one should be capable of doing good works with out being told too, or forced too. In fact it is in our very nature to be good to each other (at lest to a degree).

I agree with both those statements entirely. However, it would be impossible for ANYONE to achieve such charitable acts without some instruction. If this is not so, explain to me why we must teach children NOT to steal, and not to hurt another child, and not to cheat, and not to
lie, and so on.

Yes, most of our morals come from our upbringing. I know that I'll always be charitable because of my, though brief, experiences being poor, and the knowledge of my mother's experiences being poor. Not to mention the fact that I've been very perceptive of other people's feelings since I was very young.

And, I am an atheist. WOAH HOLY FUCK A MORAL ATHEIST.

Yes, so stop judging. I don't judge you, so shut the fuck up with the generalizations. Eh?

And by the way, this isn't solely aimed at you, as you seem to be more reasonable than others in this thread.

---

At 6/26/07 05:59 PM, afliXion wrote:

I agree with both those statements entirely. However, it would be impossible for ANYONE to achieve such charitable acts without some instruction. If this is not so, explain to me why we must teach children NOT to steal, and not to hurt another child, and not to cheat, and not to
lie, and so on.

Why we should teach our children to become good global citizens? Because, like I posted earlier, the good behavior we are teaching our children is what we would want directed at ourselves. Because we feel compassion for those who are suffering, and want to help. Because we understand that our place in the world is to help others using our own free will.

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today" - Isaac Asimov

---

At 6/26/07 07:27 PM, Tancrisism wrote:
For instance: God creating the Universe in seven days. And it being omnipotent, yet needing a day (in Earth time, I assume) to rest.

You made atleast two mistakes. You are of course referring to Genesis 2:2. First of all, nowhere in this passage is it indicated that God needed to rest. Just that on the 7th day he chose to. This is discussed in a bit more detail in Exodus 20, which explains how God was setting up our 7 day week pattern. (Which by the way, is the only system of time not based on astronomy) Your second mistake is that of not understanding the meaning of the word 'rest.' The Hebrew word used here is 'shabath.' This word simply means ' to cease, desist.' God did not tire, He just 'ended' His work.

But I don't want to get into a debate about religion, as to be honest it makes me perfectly happy that you believe. Good for you.

Just don't push it on me, or judge me because I don't.

If you don't want to get in a debate a religion, why would you join one? Hm.
Until you posted this, I didn't know you existed. I wasn't thinking of or speaking to you. Don't tell me not to judge you, because it is literally impossible for me to do so.

Easy, its circular reasoning really.
Living life just to live for life is like writing a book just to put letters on a page.

Right, what's wrong with doing that?

It lacks meaning, purpose, direction, and a point.

My theory of the whole "point" issue is that there may not be a point in the conventional term of the word, according to it as being in the human mind, as everything we do seems to have a point except what we do it for. It's not that there is no point, it's that we are attributing the need for a point to something that this cannot be attributed to.

This statement was a bit incoherent. If there is not a point 'as being in the human mind' then why do you consider it fallible to attribute that 'point' to something that is beyone the human mind? If we do everything except for the point of doing it.... that doesn't make any sense!

Just because I can't identify a point doesn't mean life is meaningless and hollow. I love what is, and live life because of this. I don't need to create some higher being to make life worth living. Sure, there is a lot of bad, a LOT of bad, but it's too easy to notice the bad. It's a challenge to pay attention and hold on to the good, and makes life much more satisfying.

I'm really having trouble following you. You seem to love life because it is life, even without a point to this life. But like I said earlier, all are given life, and it is up to us to something more with it than to just say 'theres no point I just live to live.' This goes back to what I was saying earlier, it's just circular reasoning.

As for the first definition: Like Sarte said 'we are condemned to freedom.' So true. To live just for life's sake is pointless sense all are given life, and with this blessing it is our responsibility to leave our own mark on it, our own character.

I'm afraid I'm not following your logic here. You are saying that because we are given life, to live it just to live it is pointless because we live? And thus we need to leave our own mark on it?

YOU are the one saying life is pointless! I am saying that because we have life we are able to create our character, and therefore we must have a point.

How does this have anything to do with atheism? Almost every atheist I've had contact with, including myself, have our own philosophies that we live by. Atheism does not necessarily mean nihilism.

It was the context of the argument dude.

And besides, you are living the same life as me, with the same essential truths. How is mine any less truthful than yours just because you believe in a higher power? In your mind, it may be less truthful, but in the end truth is entirely relative to one's own mind.

We live with the same essential truths, yet A. I believe in God, you don't. B. I believe there truth is NOT subjective, and you do. What are these essential truths we both believe in? You not believing in God makes you less truthful because... you deny the truth. That's alittle too obvious.

And concerning who are we to enforce any truth on any other life, we might say the same to you given my above statement.

Sigh. I was not saying that you shouldn't, I was just saying that if you live life just for life, then you have no justification in preaching your truth to someone is living for their own life.

And, I am an atheist. WOAH HOLY FUCK A MORAL ATHEIST.

Like I said before, I have had some good friends that were atheists. They can call themselves moral, but the fact remains as atheists they have no basis with which to call thereselves or their actions moral, if they and others are just living life for life's sake.

Yes, so stop judging. I don't judge you, so shut the fuck up with the generalizations. Eh?

I never judged anyone, and I certainly didn't judge you. And even if I did, why would you, living your life with no point to that life, be so worried about someone judging? Judgment implies an outcome, and I doubt you would worry about the outcome to a pointless life.

At 6/26/07 07:32 PM, AAraven wrote:

At 6/26/07 05:59 PM, afliXion wrote:

I agree with both those statements entirely. However, it would be impossible for ANYONE to achieve such charitable acts without some instruction. If this is not so, explain to me why we must teach children NOT to steal, and not to hurt another child, and not to cheat, and not to
lie, and so on.

Why we should teach our children to become good global citizens? Because, like I posted earlier, the good behavior we are teaching our children is what we would want directed at ourselves. Because we feel compassion for those who are suffering, and want to help. Because we understand that our place in the world is to help others using our own free will.

You must have a great faith in the good nature of humanity. I guess that is the fundamental difference between us. Anyway, I'm not sure why you asked the rhetorical there at the beginning of the paragraph. I was certainly not questioning the fact that we should raise children with a good moral upbringing. I was just saying that it is vital that we do it because these altruistic behaviors are not so inherent in us as you would have us believing. This is proved just by looking at the way the world is, considering that we have even children stabbing, rapping, pregnant, doing drugs... and so on.

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today" - Isaac Asimov

Is it not also premature to lack the knowledge of God yet still faithfully believe that humanity will do good in God's absence?

Job 4:17,21
"Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
...Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom."

---

At 6/26/07 07:32 PM, AAraven wrote:

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today" - Isaac Asimov

I could dig up quotes from people too and call it good, but it still doesn't mean anything.

---

At 6/25/07 07:15 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Chistian girl suck dick poorly.

Thread over. Atheists win.

---

At 6/26/07 08:50 PM, afliXion wrote:

Living life just to live for life is like writing a book just to put letters on a page.

Right, what's wrong with doing that?

It lacks meaning, purpose, direction, and a point.

No it doesn't. At least, not necessarily. You know what the best cure for writer's block is? Writing. Anything. It doesn't have to make sense it doesn't have to relate to what you're trying to write... it's just putting words on a page. From that simple act we can all find meaning direction and a point without some superior guidance.

You not believing in God makes you less truthful because... you deny the truth. That's alittle too obvious.

Except if truth is subjective, than it is you denying the truth, and being less truthful.

Sigh. I was not saying that you shouldn't, I was just saying that if you live life just for life, then you have no justification in preaching your truth to someone is living for their own life.

Why not? Preaching to someone that you must find your own meaning in life (often through just living it) is no worse than preaching some other meaning from an outside source.

Like I said before, I have had some good friends that were atheists. They can call themselves moral, but the fact remains as atheists they have no basis with which to call thereselves or their actions moral, if they and others are just living life for life's sake.

There are plenty of scientific reasons for the morality we have today. And there are plenty of objectivist stances that allow for a very staunch moral code. One most people adhere to whether it's because of the Q'uran or not.

You must have a great faith in the good nature of humanity. I guess that is the fundamental difference between us.

As humanity and most of our history precedes monotheistic religion, it is safe to assume that there are some very strong natural instincts towards a "correct" morality. It is only the few that have ever actively gone against the biggies (killing, stealing, etc). To say that humanity's nature is not inherently good does say an awful lot about you and explains why you need a "supreme" moral judgment for everyone.

I pity your dim observation of humanity.

I was just saying that it is vital that we do it because these altruistic behaviors are not so inherent in us as you would have us believing. This is proved just by looking at the way the world is, considering that we have even children stabbing, rapping, pregnant, doing drugs... and so on.

I think that's more a result of the morality of the parents than the idea that people are inherently bad. Children don't grow up in a vacuum. They observe and copy those closest to them. If you have parents who are moral, be they religious or not, you will most likely be moral as well. If your parents are immoral, be they religious or not, then you will probably be as well.

Is it not also premature to lack the knowledge of God yet still faithfully believe that humanity will do good in God's absence?

Humanity did amazing things before the "knowledge of (your) God" came about. They were mostly good (much like now) people. They were altruistic, they were moral. Most people are moral, be they of any religion or no religion. There is very little correlation (if any) between religious beliefs and morality. Your personal experience is probably tainted with a bit of selective observation, so you might be best off taking that with a grain of salt.

---

At 6/26/07 05:59 PM, afliXion wrote: I do not pretend to know a thing about your life. I will assume what you have said is true. I think that is great. That's why I said 'I would TEND to agree.'

Thank you, but I would look more carefully at people before you judge them as being hollow.

I have had some friends that were atheists and we got along fine. Just the fast majority of non-believers I have met have been quite different.

I'm sorry to hear that. Most of the atheist I've met and work with are good people who quite literally don't give half a shit what you think about religion, provided you keep it out side of the laboratory.

If you think its only in the mind of 'plebs' then you obviously have not been paying attention to what has been going on in this country lately.

Yes I have. The only place that creation is flourishing is out side of sicence manly with the plebs, or common people. Though I will give you this much, there are some representatives who believe in it.

The Bible is definetly not a science book, but when it does make scientific statements (all of which can/have been tested/observed) they are stunning in their accuracy.

I've yet to see them, and tempted as I am to ask for you to point them out I'm not sure this is the tread for it.

Easy, its circular reasoning really.
Living life just to live for life is like writing a book just to put letters on a page.

I would disagree. It's more like writing free form poetry. Your putting words and thoughts down on paper and just flowing with it. With a bit of luck, creativity, and some effort you could end up with some truly interesting, and beautiful. Of course that's just how I see it. Perhaps if you explained a little bit more why you think this?

As for the first definition: Like Sarte said 'we are condemned to freedom.' So true. To live just for life's sake is pointless sense all are given life, and with this blessing it is our responsibility to leave our own mark on it, our own character.

But why do you say it's point less? I've found a reason in life, something which gets me up in the morning, some which makes me happy, and allows me to (eventually) contribute to the world. I have a point in life, and it's the one I made for my self.

Sense living for life just for life is so circular, and so untasteful, it is of course devoid of any truth. For if it is just your life, then who are you to enforce any truth on any other life?

What gives any one the right to enforce their truth on any one else? Your trying to say that I or other atheist are trying to enforce our selfs on you, which we aren't (at lest the releavent one's aren't).

It is completely invalid to live for your own life and then try to justify a truth.

But you've failed to explain why. In fact living for your own life is a truth in it self, maybe not one you agree with, but it is.

I was not using it against him, I was using it merely to demonstrate that while atheists (and even Christians) may claim acts of righteousness and altruism and such, but one simply can not testify to knowing as to WHY someone did the given act. If you fail to see how that verse applies to this, then you are lost.
'One fundamental reference point' ?? How many reference points do you suppose there are on a persons heart, or your own heart?

You where using it as support for your argument, I was merely pointing out that using the bible as ether evidence or for support in an argument is ineffective against some one how doesn't believe in it. Additionally when you do try to use it in such an argument, it can make your position look less viable and supported by using a reference which the opposing party has doubt in.

Oh the world of Christianity today... See Mat. 7:21-23 If you haven't noticed by now, I was not speaking for the world. I was speaking only the truth of the Bible.

So what you trying to say is not all Christians are actually Christians, or at the very lest not all Christians aren't going to heaven. If that's true, then how can you be so sure you your self are going?

no. lol. It was a joke.

I apologizes for making such an accusation then. Admittedly I at first though it was a joke, but had second thoughts.

At 6/25/07 11:27 PM, afliXion wrote:

I agree with both those statements entirely. However, it would be impossible for ANYONE to achieve such charitable acts without some instruction. If this is not so, explain to me why we must teach children NOT to steal, and not to hurt another child, and not to cheat, and not to
lie, and so on.

You are stretching what I said to far. Leaving the context of what was said before of what Maiko said might have helped.
When I said that it was in response to a claim (implication to) that just because something had been said previously, then a good person who lived his life for his life shouldn't have to follow it.

And that's what my reply was about. Namely that just cause one “good” person said something dose not make it good. There could be reasons behind what was said, but not inherently goodness.

As an aside, most of the post I've done have been near or over the character limit, so I tend to remove excess quotes. Some one that is truly interested in the discussion would look back and see the turnicated information.

And dude, remember the golden rule: Do onto others as you would have done onto you. Do you really want people to attack your religion the way you attacked Atheism?

What? Dude, we were just having a healthy debate about religion! You think i attacked him??
That statement left me completely baffled as I didn't fathom someone could be that weak.
Oh and, if you haven't noticed, people do attack Christianity on a daily basis. And as long as you are quoting verses to me, quote this one:

People attack atheism daily, people attack Islam daily, it seams that all religious philosophies are attacked in some way daily. Why should Christianity be any different, why should it get special treatment? Especially given that many initial (though again not all) attacks come from zealous Christians?

This time you have the context, and yet you still completely missed the point.
I was told that I was 'attacking' atheism merely for DEBATING someone.
NOWHERE did I imply that Christians should get some sort of 'special treatment.'

No I realize this, but I was going after your ending statement, which didn't seem to be far more broad then said post.

I left the previous post this time, happy :P

:)

Mat. 5 11-12
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad..."

Personally I like Psalms 137:9
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

First of all, did you not just accuse me of quoting a verse that had nothing to do with the argument??

No, what I accused you of was using the bible as a source of information for someone who doubts the very book. It's not logical or effective.

Did you not just accuse me of saying something extra just incase I need to escape??

A mistake, I apologized for it.

The verse you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You hypocrite.

I fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite. I was trying to enfesize the futility of using bible quotes against some one who disagrees with it.

Anyway, you took that verse so far out of context its sick. Read the rest of that nine verse Psalm, and you will see that 'thy little ones' is referring to the men of Babylon who took Israel captive, and were later destroyed in war. Geez.

I have read it, and I don't see where it says or implies that thy little ones is anything less then babies or children especially given that most translations other then the KJV says babies or infants, though you are correct about it referencing the men of Babylon and Israel. The best explanation I've heard for this is it's simply a prayer for gods wrath to smite the enemies of Israel. Any further light you wish to shed on this section would be appreciated.

---

At 6/26/07 05:56 PM, deafeningsilence5 wrote: Sure, there could be a higher power. It is utterly false that it is the god most Christians worship.

Prove it.

---

At 6/27/07 12:19 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/26/07 08:50 PM, afliXion wrote:

Living life just to live for life is like writing a book just to put letters on a page.

Right, what's wrong with doing that?

It lacks meaning, purpose, direction, and a point.

No it doesn't. At least, not necessarily. You know what the best cure for writer's block is? Writing. Anything. It doesn't have to make sense it doesn't have to relate to what you're trying to write... it's just putting words on a page. From that simple act we can all find meaning direction and a point without some superior guidance.

Well, if you want your life to not make sense and not relate to anything, be my guest. I can only imagine what kind of meaning you find from things that don't make sense, and a point from things going in no direction, or how you get anywhere without any kind of guidance if your just 'putting words on a page.'

You not believing in God makes you less truthful because... you deny the truth. That's alittle too obvious.

Except if truth is subjective, than it is you denying the truth, and being less truthful.

That was clever. But don't be silly.

Sigh. I was not saying that you shouldn't, I was just saying that if you live life just for life, then you have no justification in preaching your truth to someone is living for their own life.

Why not? Preaching to someone that you must find your own meaning in life (often through just living it) is no worse than preaching some other meaning from an outside source.

I wonder, what do you think to accomplish by comparing to 'an outside scource' (which is obviously aimed at God)? Anyway,

Like I said before, I have had some good friends that were atheists. They can call themselves moral, but the fact remains as atheists they have no basis with which to call thereselves or their actions moral, if they and others are just living life for life's sake.

There are plenty of scientific reasons for the morality we have today. And there are plenty of objectivist stances that allow for a very staunch moral code. One most people adhere to whether it's because of the Q'uran or not.

Heh. It seems you are arguing the fallacy of 'selective observation.' Maybe you should read about Time Magazines issue where it proclaims ‘Infidelity? It’s in your genes.’ 'Science' today even proclaims adultery, homosexuality, cheating, stealing, and the list goes on, as inherited traits. How could 'science' affirm we inherit such things, yet at the same time give us reasons for morality? Because of your selective observation, you are supporting incompatible views of the same thing (science), and in reality, it doesn't explain anything. But then again, this is what one would expect if you try to find reason in things that don't make sense.

As humanity and most of our history precedes monotheistic religion, it is safe to assume that there are some very strong natural instincts towards a "correct" morality. It is only the few that have ever actively gone against the biggies (killing, stealing, etc). To say that humanity's nature is not inherently good does say an awful lot about you and explains why you need a "supreme" moral judgment for everyone.

In your first sentence (allbeit untrue) seems to committ atleast two of the fallacies mentioned on your linked site. argument by laziness: You weren't around that early in our history, you have no idea of there life-style, and you obviously haven't done much research on the subject anyway. Second is disproof by fallacy: Sense humanity does not precede monotheistic religion, there is no reason to assume that. Besides, even if that was true, you have not even attempted to demonstrate how lack of monotheistic religion means we must assume instincts to do good. Now you really are just putting words on a page.

I was just saying that it is vital that we do it because these altruistic behaviors are not so inherent in us as you would have us believing. This is proved just by looking at the way the world is, considering that we have even children stabbing, rapping, pregnant, doing drugs... and so on.

I think that's more a result of the morality of the parents than the idea that people are inherently bad. Children don't grow up in a vacuum. They observe and copy those closest to them. If you have parents who are moral, be they religious or not, you will most likely be moral as well. If your parents are immoral, be they religious or not, then you will probably be as well.

It probably is the morality of the parents. But that of course begs the questions, how did the parents become so immoral?
Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify something: I do not believe that man is inherently bad, just inherently bad natured. I think he is more inclined to do bad things (like vanity, envy, stealing, cheating, etc) yet there is something that tells us that this is wrong. Sense this is so, and because man has this ability to see and choose between right/wrong, then there must be a point or direction as to why he chose that way, otherwise there would be no need for this entire 'inheritance' discussion.

Is it not also premature to lack the knowledge of God yet still faithfully believe that humanity will do good in God's absence?

Humanity did amazing things before the "knowledge of (your) God" came about. They were mostly good (much like now) people. They were altruistic, they were moral. Most people are moral, be they of any religion or no religion. There is very little correlation (if any) between religious beliefs and morality. Your personal experience is probably tainted with a bit of selective observation, so you might be best off taking that with a grain of salt.

Again, I do no accept your assumptions of when 'my' God came about. All you are doing is setting up an abstraction, a picture in our head for alturistic people, yet you have not even mentioned in your whole entire response a single altruistic thing any of them have ever done.
To take care of something simply: Most people in our society believe in God, so on the foundation of your argument, there must be a correlation of morals and religion.
Don't pretend to know anything about my personal experiences. You have never seen me, nor do you know any one act I've ever done in my whole life. And yet you speak to me about 'selective observation'?? You hypocrite. I was not brought up in some super religious house hold, I was not taken to church every Sunday. My mom could even quote me when I was about 13 as saying 'I don't believe in God.'
Do me a favor and spare us all of your arrogance when you falsely preach on peoples inhertiance while cloaked in a false shroud of righteousness.

---

At 6/27/07 01:45 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 6/26/07 05:59 PM, afliXion wrote: A really long post.

After all that post, you make my case for me!

I fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite. I was trying to enfesize the futility of using bible quotes against some one who disagrees with it.

If you have found reason in life by just living life for the sake of life, then how much less value is in that reason if you don't even need a reason to have a reason!
Life could be called the pursuit of truth, but life itself is not truth sense (for you apparently) it conforms to no actuality and has no direction, and as you yourself say if someone disagrees with that truth then it is futile to proclaim it!

Its two in the morning come on.

---

Atheists and Religious people need to stop crying. I'm an athiest but I don't go and throw it in peoples faces every chance I get. If you're religious then good for you, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and they should stay your own beliefs. The same goes out to the athiests.
Wheather you are an athiest or religious you have no right at all to try and make someone else think what you want them to think. It's no better than the government trying to tell people what they can and can't put into their bodies. So everyone should just stop trying to force their belifs down the other guys throat.

---

At 6/26/07 09:41 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/25/07 07:15 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Chistian girl suck dick poorly.

Thread over. Atheists win.

;
Wait one second !
My girlfriend was brought up Catholic, & if there was ever anyone who can be listed to the whole "golf ball through the garden hose" reference.
She would definately be on the list.
Not only that , She loves doing it......--god love her & keep her safe-- more :o)

---

At 6/27/07 03:02 AM, afliXion wrote: After all that post, you make my case for me!

I'll admit I didn't bring forth much of an argument, but where did I make your case for you? There where several subareas we where arguing which ones helped your case? Also it is quite possible we have some agreement in areas, just not all; if so then I would have also made my case.

Additionally I did ask if you would expand a little on a few of your arguments, and statments.

I fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite. I was trying to enfesize the futility of using bible quotes against some one who disagrees with it.

If you have found reason in life by just living life for the sake of life, then how much less value is in that reason if you don't even need a reason to have a reason!

Why? I see more value in it. It was my choice my decision, I chose my reason and because of that I feel more free, more open, then if it was given to be by a book. I can find my own reasons in life, and I feel that makes it all the more worthwhile. I'm not limited to a single set of doctrines which I might disagree with on some points, I don't have to make excuses for following, or not following things I'm not in full agree with. My moral system is my own, and lacks the authoritarian nature of a religious one.

A side note, there are natural reason for have a reason or purpose in life; It makes one happier, more fulfilled, and generally increases your survival chances.

Life could be called the pursuit of truth, but life itself is not truth sense (for you apparently) it conforms to no actuality and has no direction,

Truth sense? I'm not sure I fully understand what your saying, do you mean to imply “the pursuit of truth”? Ether way, ones life is there own making, this includes there purpose. I find the pursuit of knowledge, information, and truth to be a corner stone in my philosophical make up, but others may not.

and as you yourself say if someone disagrees with that truth then it is futile to proclaim it!

I think you mistook what I said, quite possible considering how i wrote it. What I said was using a reference source, namely the bible in an argument against some one who has at a very fundamental nature doubt about it, is both ineffective, and counter productive. I didn't say it was futile to proclaim a truth, just that you might need to find other references and support for it.

Its two in the morning come on.

When talking or debating with me on these forums don't feel that you have to instantly respond. Take time if you need it, I'll be back around eventually.

---

LOL @ ATHIESTS BELIEFS.

---

At 6/27/07 04:59 PM, Crotchmonkey wrote: LOL @ ATHIESTS BELIEFS.

Right back at you darling.

---

Why does it even matter if there is a higher being or not? Besides a couple lifestyle choices, what would actually change if we absolutely KNEW whether or not God existed? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! The Divine apparently doesn't interfere with human life in ways we can understand (if he exists), so even if there is a God, we wouldn't really be able to tell.

I feel the need to make scattered points and observations that have probably already been discussed. Feel free to ridicule me when this happens.

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

From this definition, one could say that atheism is a religion.

The problem with this whole argument is that it's impossible to win. you can't do it.

Neither side will ever win, no matter what you say or do.

---

At 6/27/07 11:02 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Wait one second !
My girlfriend was brought up Catholic, & if there was ever anyone who can be listed to the whole "golf ball through the garden hose" reference.
She would definately be on the list.
Not only that , She loves doing it......--god love her & keep her safe-- more :o)

Catholic schoolgirls don't count, obviously. Haven't you ever seen pornography?

---

At 6/27/07 02:29 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 6/27/07 03:02 AM, afliXion wrote: My last post on this thread, because we are going in circles.

Why? I see more value in it. It was my choice my decision, I chose my reason and because of that I feel more free, more open, then if it was given to be by a book.

This is the mistake that you have been making all along. You see, I made the same decision you made. I live my life as I choose, as you do. It was not 'given' to me, it was revealed to me, and that is what I chose.

---

At 6/27/07 02:40 AM, afliXion wrote: Well, if you want your life to not make sense and not relate to anything, be my guest. I can only imagine what kind of meaning you find from things that don't make sense, and a point from things going in no direction, or how you get anywhere without any kind of guidance if your just 'putting words on a page.'

Why am I not surprised that the metaphor sailed over your head?

That was clever. But don't be silly.

I wasn't. Prove truth isn't subjective. If truth is absolute then it should be easy, no?

I wonder, what do you think to accomplish by comparing to 'an outside scource' (which is obviously aimed at God)? Anyway,

A) What are you talking about?

B) The phrase wasn't aimed only at your god, but other gods, Karma, and various philosophies of destiny as well. Had it been I would have said "your god". Just because your religion is the only thing you can fathom doesn't mean there aren't other ideas out there. I prefer to address them all.

There are plenty of scientific reasons for the morality we have today. And there are plenty of objectivist stances that allow for a very staunch moral code. One most people adhere to whether it's because of the Q'uran or not.

Heh. It seems you are arguing the fallacy of 'selective observation.'

Logic is selective observation? Please.

Natural (read: scientific) reason for murder being immoral: killing others of your own kind lowers your chances of survival (we're social animals, smaller pack means easier to end up food for lions).

Natural reason for stealing being immoral: Pack cohesion suffers when one person takes from another.

Envy, anger, assault, gluttony can all be tied to survival instincts.

Maybe you should read about Time Magazines issue where it proclaims ‘Infidelity? It’s in your genes.’

Link me to the text and I will.

'Science' today even proclaims adultery, homosexuality, cheating, stealing, and the list goes on, as inherited traits.

Aside from homosexuality where have any such claims been made? Also, where and by what method were the studies produced?

How could 'science' affirm we inherit such things, yet at the same time give us reasons for morality?

See above.

Because of your selective observation, you are supporting incompatible views of the same thing (science), and in reality, it doesn't explain anything. But then again, this is what one would expect if you try to find reason in things that don't make sense.

So science explains nothing and doesn't make sense, is that what you're saying?

Or is it morality that doesn't make sense?

What is this nonsensical thing I'm trying to find a reason for?

In your first sentence (allbeit untrue) seems to committ atleast two of the fallacies mentioned on your linked site. argument by laziness: You weren't around that early in our history, you have no idea of there life-style, and you obviously haven't done much research on the subject anyway.

Actually I have. I have taken several anthropology coursed and know quite well what went on in our early history. Of course, you don't believe any of that history actually happened, so I guess the argument is useless. No matter how many credit hours or how many degrees I might have in the subject of early human civilization, because you take the bible literally, no actual dialogue can ever happen.

Second is disproof by fallacy: Sense humanity does not precede monotheistic religion, there is no reason to assume that.

Judaism and Zoroastrianism are the first Monotheistic religions... both started around 4000 years ago. Even by YOUR insane counting of the age of civilization that leaves an awful lot of pre-monotheistic-religion where humanity very much did exist. You are flat-out wrong on this one, dude.

Besides, even if that was true, you have not even attempted to demonstrate how lack of monotheistic religion means we must assume instincts to do good.

That's not part of the argument, though. The argument is that humans are moral with or without religion, thus there must be some other cause. We know that humans without monotheistic religion were moral, because they survived and grew into the moral society we see today. Morality is about group cohesion and without it a society will fail. Humanity didn't fail.

It probably is the morality of the parents. But that of course begs the questions, how did the parents become so immoral?

Well, we'd have to look at their upbringing, life and a billion other factors. Lack of a stable community (like one provided by a church) may well have been one of them... or it could be something (or a million things) else.

Anyway, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify something: I do not believe that man is inherently bad, just inherently bad natured.

Uh... beg pardon, but what's the difference?

Again, I do no accept your assumptions of when 'my' God came about.

I didn't say "god", I said "religion". If you can't tell the difference this conversation should just end now.

All you are doing is setting up an abstraction, a picture in our head for alturistic people, yet you have not even mentioned in your whole entire response a single altruistic thing any of them have ever done.

So you deny that altruism exists outside of religious folk?

To take care of something simply: Most people in our society believe in God, so on the foundation of your argument, there must be a correlation of morals and religion.

No. Because the 16% of the population that are not religious are generally moral as well.

Don't pretend to know anything about my personal experiences. You have never seen me, nor do you know any one act I've ever done in my whole life. And yet you speak to me about 'selective observation'?

Yes. You claim that, and I quote:

At 6/26/07 05:59 PM, afliXion wrote: I have had some friends that were atheists and we got along fine. Just the fast majority of non-believers I have met have been quite different.

Talking about how fulfilled, meaningful, and moral the life of an atheist is. If that's not selective observation I don't know what is... unless you know the religious beliefs of every person you meet.

Many of my friends are atheist... many are not. They all have some direction, some meaning and some point be it personal or religious to their lives. Your claim (tempered by the fact that you admit it's only those you've observed) is that the vast majority are otherwise. This is simply not true... and I could find plenty of religious people who are adrift in their lives with no direction or apparent purpose, so the claim is just bogus.

You hypocrite. I was not brought up in some super religious house hold, I was not taken to church every Sunday. My mom could even quote me when I was about 13 as saying 'I don't believe in God.'

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

Do me a favor and spare us all of your arrogance when you falsely preach on peoples inhertiance while cloaked in a false shroud of righteousness.

The word is "inherent", and it means something different than "inherit". This may be the source of your frustration and misunderstanding.

And you should take your own advice.

---

Just start off with a quote I kind of like, describing atheists.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"--Richard Dawkins.
Though I'm coming into this kind of late all I really feel like saying is this. If religions are about love and acceptance and being kind to mankind, why is it that the followers of multiple religions have trouble accepting difference. I do not accuse or point fingers, i simply ask. I myself am an atheist and many of my friends are able to accept that and move along. My main problem that tends to occur over and over is when some people find out I am an athiest and then immediatly must question how I can shun god from my heart and do I really want to burn in hell for enternity?
I offer this, accept and be accepted. If religions and philosophical beliefs could learn to accept one another and not push their ideas and theories into each others faces. Allow others to be different without trying to convert each other, or break into yelling matches and arguments. Doesn't that seem much simpler?

---

At 6/25/07 06:45 AM, SlithVampir wrote:

Personally, I'm an agnostic

Or an athiest without balls. lol

---

geocities.com/atheismsucks

choke on it

---

At 6/27/07 09:01 PM, Ravariel wrote: Natural (read: scientific) reason for murder being immoral: killing others of your own kind lowers your chances of survival (we're social animals, smaller pack means easier to end up food for lions).

But, it is commonly in your evolutionary interest to murder. For instance, the murder of sexual rivals is a tendancy of humans that is acknowledged in evolution. Moreover, the majority of tribes in prehistoric cultures were in a state of constant war with other tribes, with the vast majority of tribes being in a war at least once per year. In prehistoric tribal warfare, the deathtoll was nothing short of horrific, and the genocide of entire tribes was not uncommon. In Central America, in particular, the level of barbarity was atrocious, with tribes routinely slowly torturing enemy combatants to death as a part of their culture. Overall, peaceful societies were extremely rare, and almost all societies killed and engaged in warfare with frequency. In conclusion, I find it surprising you would turn to ancient civillizations and evolution to find a basis for morality, when in fact, the history of mankind shows unrelenting barbarity and inhumanity.

---

...just when you thought these debates couldn't get any more retarded...