Atheists

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 77
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I'm not an athiest but I have a greater respect for them than nuts that take horoscopes and superstitions seriously. And that includes blind religious zealots that think going to church every sunday and doing hail-Mary's are going to save them from an eternity of hellfire.
  • Reply 42 of 77
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]I'd say agnostics are realists, as science and its "laws" do not apply to [for the sake of arguemnt hypothetical] [G|g]od[s]/creators/etc, making a scientific evidence (or a lack thereof) largely irrelevant. Mysterious ways...<hr></blockquote>



  • Reply 43 of 77
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    [quote]what the bible says makes it almost impossible to get to heaven anyway. Yes I know the bible very well. You can test me later<hr></blockquote>



    I thought that the New Testament made it considerably easier?



    [quote]God does not fit in with this natural law. <hr></blockquote>



    Perhaps God is not subject to "natural law", having formulated/created it?



    As Far As I Understand, The Devil (etc) opposes God but is not equal to God.



    [ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
  • Reply 44 of 77
    mimacmimac Posts: 871member
    Personally, I don't subscribe to the atheist point of view, but check out the following link.

    If any of the points raised or the corresponding rumors have any truth

    Two questions arise ...

    1:If there is a satan then there is a God.

    2: If Jobs subscribes to this kind of thing then the Apple platform must be inherently evil.



    <a href="http://cis2.cuyamaca.net/212examples/00spring/morelli/project/sermon.htm"; target="_blank">http://cis2.cuyamaca.net/212examples/00spring/morelli/project/sermon.htm</a>;



    ...just a thought <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 45 of 77
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Holy fvck.



    'God' has a place in government, always has. The contention/tradition/principle of American secular government is a separation of CHURCH and STATE. GOD is NOT a CHURCH; DOES NOT REPRESENT ONE CHURCH exclusively at the expense of others, or even any CHURCHES at all. 'GOD' as far as concerns it's appearance in STATELY AFFAIRS, is a PHILOSOPHICAL idea. It may be rooted in Christian tradition, but I'm pretty sure you don't swear to Jesus?



    There is no provision in the constitution for the seperation of THEISM and STATE. Which is what these deranged **** disturber atheists want. THEISM and RELIGION (CHURCH) are NOT the same.



    Point your over-paid circuit court judges to this post and be done with it. Atheists lose, and Religion stays where it's always been -- in Church, not in the pledge of allegiance, and not on your currency.



    Don't needlessly confuse things.
  • Reply 46 of 77
    [quote]THEISM and RELIGION (CHURCH) are NOT the same.<hr></blockquote>



    They're not, but religion has a number of meanings, one of which is:



    Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.



    Which is half theism. What about reverence then? Having 'God' in the pledge of allegiance is reverence, is it not?



    [ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]



    [ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]</p>
  • Reply 47 of 77
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member




    Whatever Xidius.



    I won't be drawn into the the huge teleological argument with you. Nor will I go into the typically absurd reductions people tend to make when discussing religion/theism/atheism.



    'God' represents a well developed principle that government does well to allude to. History and tradition supports an idea 'God' as inclusive to all religions. The constitution does not protect or promote atheism and has no obligation to do so. The use of the term 'God' may indeed offend atheists. However, since atheism is NOT a religion, it does not enjoy ANY protection from contradictory speech (which may or may not offend it's principles). Government is NOT required to pander to the beliefs of a few irrational atheists in order to proove a separation of Church and State.

    ______________________



    Edit: Dead Member raises a valid point. But Religion and Theism can be played both closer to each other (as you've done) or further away.



    [ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
  • Reply 48 of 77
    Let's ask their good ol' foundin' fathers what they meant!



    I believe that references to God should be removed, as the people can speak for themselves on that; I'm more concerned with the preservation of human rights and community, a framework in which any religion or lack thereof should exist. As far as the majority is concerned though, 'God' belongs in the state, and they wouldn't settle for a more politically correct compromise.



    [ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]</p>
  • Reply 49 of 77
    ijerryijerry Posts: 615member
    okay well now for the record...the new testament did not make it easier if anything it made it harder, if you have read and studied the bible you would know this to be true. For example before to rid yourself of sin you offered a pure sacrifice of your best of the herd. It had to be "cut" typically in the shape of an T to expose the insides of the creature to ensure there were no tumors and the like. This was how the body was cleansed and you continued on your day and week with really no reprecusion due to the fact that you could just offer another sacrifice. However with the coming of jesus cam a whole new set of laws that one had to meet along with faith. Now you MUST live your life according to the law, pornounce your faith openly and convert others regardless of the cost, you must be baptized, and continue to live in the light and confess to your brothers. Give a tithing and more if needed. And if their is still unconfessed sin in your heart, no, you will not make it to heaven...so please tell me how the new testament made it easier. If you want scripture passages you had better open up another thread becasue I have at least 50 off hand.



    And as for satan being an equal opposite, this is not what I said. So no need to comment.



    Is it christian or anything else to sit here and bicker with us atheists? To argue only when something big happens concerning the word god. I say if you were truly christian or whatever then you could act a little more like it. Because I never read of jesus arguing that there is indeed a god. he gave stories and riddles and lead by example. And he fought ALL his life, not just when things came up. So please don't get religious on me when you feel like it. Go and be religious if that is what you claim to be. But please actually read the bible and the meaning of the word god according to the bible before you get on a high horse.



    As for me, I will not endure religious beleifs thrown at me in any way, subtle or not. I don't feel it is right. I don't know how else to say it or what else to say so good day .



    [ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: ijerry ]</p>
  • Reply 50 of 77
    [quote]Originally posted by DiscoCow:

    <strong>

    That the idea of ?God? is about as rational as belief in the tooth fairy, but that starts off on the path of logical fallacy, namely that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence & there is a big difference: there is good scientific evidence that fairies and talking pink bunnies DON?T exist but very little if no scientific evidence that God doesn?t exist, in fact there is extremely powerful evidence that a creator does/did exist; one of the examples I can think of is:



    The origin of life



    the late agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of life originating by chance are 1x10^4,000,000 and some change, that's a one with four million zeros after it!

    Or, as he said(paraphrased) ?the odds are about the same as a tornado and a junkyard producing a 747?]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Aha, yes but!



    Six numbers:



    'N', in nature, equal to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000; the number measuring the strength of forces holding atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. A force any weaker and the universe would have collapsed within, er, no 'time' at all.



    (Bear with me.)



    'E', weighing in at 0.007, defining how atomic nuclei bind together and the production of atoms; if 'E; were, say, 0.008 or 0.006, then uranium atoms (or plutonium, or pick your own heavy element) would outnumber carbon atoms and there'd be no-one around to see the universe. No stars, galaxies, or any of the stable features of the cosmos, biology is impossible and we've got a different periodic table of elements.



    (Don't quit now.)



    'Omega', measuring the amount of 'stuff' in the universe: gas, galaxies, 'dark matter'. We're talking density: too much and the universe would have collapsed before the formation of the first star, not enough and stars would never have ignited and there is no cosmos and there are no elements. Doh and thrice doh again.



    (It'll all be worth it. With any luck.)



    'Q', a number representing the ratio of two vital energies concerning the ties binding clusters and superclusters, expressed as a proportion of their 'rest mass energy', ie, the ability of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, groups of atoms, compounds (and by extension and with a bit of imagination even organisms) to look after themselves without either collapse or impossible expansion.



    And two more numbers every bit as arbitrary and potentially boring to do with the physics that makes the universe the way it is (plucked from the book 'Just Six Numbers' by the Astronomer Royal Martin Rees.)



    The point is, of course we find evidence of 'Creation' everywhere we look - the universe seems to be tailor-made for us. If any of these six numbers designating weights, masses and ratios were .00000000001 (pick a decimal) different, physics would be altered, the universe would be unrecogniseable if there were one at all and we would not be here to remark on how wonderful and impossible it all is. But, out of all the possible universes these arbitrary numbers allow, some that would last no 'time' at all, some that would last 'forever' and produce no kind of matter, we're in this one. A universe that allows the production of stable atoms and lets them mix it up together to produce stars, galaxies and me and you. If it were any different, we wouldn't be here to see it.



    So, as magic and miraculous as it all is, all we can say is that we're here because the physics of the universe are 'right': it's possible for us be here. (Some Darwinist zealots would say it's practically inevitable we're here as a species, and I think I agree.) If the numbers governing the universe's physical laws were any different, we wouldn't be here at all. To put it another way, thanks to the right physics we're here looking at the universe.



    To put it another way still, out of all the potential universes, we're here in the one that allows us to be here... so of course it's tailor made for us.



    Er... does anyone get my point? (Anyone for gibberish?) We're lucky we're here, but if things were different by the tiniest of margins we wouldn't be, and the 'impossibility' of all these ratios, weights, densities and forces coming together in a way that allows the existence of our universe only proves that out of all the infinite number of possible universes, there's one that worked and we're in it. (Bloody hell.)



    You can count out any Creator right now. Or the necessity at the very least.



    The fact we're here at all is miraculous enough, and we don't really need god for an explanation.



    No?



    Oh, OK.



    [I wrote this this morning having not slept at all last night celebrating someone's 'Name's Day'. It doesn't make a heap of sense. It's staying as a testament to the folly of posting pissed.]



    [ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: Hassan i-Sabbah ]</p>
  • Reply 51 of 77




    [ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: Hassan i-Sabbah ]</p>
  • Reply 52 of 77
    Double post.



    I really was in trouble this morning.



    [ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: Hassan i-Sabbah ]</p>
  • Reply 53 of 77
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by MiMac:

    <strong>Personally, I don't subscribe to the atheist point of view, but check out the following link.

    If any of the points raised or the corresponding rumors have any truth



    2: If Jobs subscribes to this kind of thing then the Apple platform must be inherently evil.



    <a href="http://cis2.cuyamaca.net/212examples/00spring/morelli/project/sermon.htm"; target="_blank">http://cis2.cuyamaca.net/212examples/00spring/morelli/project/sermon.htm</a>;



    ...just a thought <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    :eek: now i understand why have a tail and two horns :o
  • Reply 54 of 77
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    [quote]Er... does anyone get my point? (Anyone for gibberish?) We're lucky we're here, but if things were different by the tiniest of margins we wouldn't be, and the 'impossibility' of all these ratios, weights, densities and forces coming together in a way that allows the existence of our universe only proves that out of all the infinite number of possible universes, there's one that worked and we're in it. (Bloody hell.)<hr></blockquote>



    We're in this universe because we couldn't be in any others.



    [quote]Is it christian or anything else to sit here and bicker with us atheists? <hr></blockquote>



    Can't we not bicker and have a reasonable, civilised philosphical discussion?



    [ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
  • Reply 55 of 77
    [quote]The point is, of course we find evidence of 'Creation' everywhere we look - the universe seems to be tailor-made for us.<hr></blockquote>



    An essay by Jef Raskin reminded me that we are also tailor made for the universe. I hate essays, but this one is interesting at least:



    <a href="http://www.jefraskin.com/forjef2/jefweb-compiled/unpublished/effectiveness_mathematics.html"; target="_blank">http://www.jefraskin.com/forjef2/jefweb-compiled/unpublished/effectiveness_mathematics.html</a>;
  • Reply 56 of 77
    ijerryijerry Posts: 615member
    [quote] Can't we not bicker and have a reasonable, civilised philosphical discussion? <hr></blockquote>



    the question of whether we can bicker is answered by a yes we can, however I was asking if it was christian to do so using examples from the bible.
  • Reply 57 of 77
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Good essay. I particularly like this : [quote] Perhaps there are amathematical, alogical phenomena that will be forever beyond our understanding because they are based on schemas for which we have not inherited the mental wherewithal needed to comprehend them ? perhaps, but there is currently no evidence that this is the case, or perhaps it is that we could not comprehend such evidence. Hamming, whose article I had not seen when I first wrote this essay, was driven to the same thought, and put it this way, "Perhaps there are thoughts we cannot think."<hr></blockquote>



    I think however that he misepresent Wittgenstein, as do logically minded people in general, namely by assuning that in the famous last line of the Tractatus that Wittgenstein is trying to silence Ethical thinking for good because it is not logical and not worth pursuing . .. rather, he is saying that philosophical (and at that time he mistakenly thought that meant logical) thought did a disservice to the ethical realms of experience. He thought that by writing the definative logical text he could do away with the need to philosophize from within Philosophy (logic). In other words he wrote the Tractatus, Not in order to do away with mystery, but, in order to do away with the logical attempt to render it logical. Anyway, later Wittgenstein is more organic.





    But besides that:



    I think people don't realize that "athiesm" too can have many forms, just as religion can. Athiesm can even be a term applied to other forms of belief by others who do not understand what it believes. And Athiesm can be a term that someone may self- adopt because the beliefs catagorized by the words 'religion' and 'god', as used ordinarily, are truly inadequate for what they experience or believe or understand.



    One person's athiesm is another person's god.
  • Reply 58 of 77
    If only the greater scientific literacy and rationality of today had been around at the time of the Founding Fathers. Maybe then they would have excluded the God word from the Constitution on the grounds of lack of, or inconclusive evidence.



    It is painful to still see billions of young children all over the world indoctrinated and brainwashed with a variety of ancient myths and fairytales based on nothing more than superstition, ignorance and misunderstanding of natural phenomena, in the pretence that such beliefs will make them "better", or "more moral", or "upstanding human beings".



    The prevalence of (organized or forced) religion is the worst scenario that has ever befallen humanity. How many more centuries of war, destruction, starvation and hatred will the human race have to suffer because of our collective addiction to this excess baggage of superstitious wackiness?



    Dump the lot.



  • Reply 59 of 77
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    SJO, I think that that is a little simplistic on a number of fronts: for one, this myth about science as replacing the myths of religion. Science is a set of descriptive disciplines through whch we can either do things or describe some things. Science's turn to cosmology usually ends up in the same realms of mytholgy and contest that theology does. Descriptions of the behaviors of natural phenomena, which can be tested and can result in prescriptions of how to deal with them to make bridges are still NO MORE undrestandings the Being of these phenomena then painting a picture of them would be. There is a difference between scientific understanding of the properties of matter and understanding the why of matter at all. Somewhere therin liew the mystery that propels people to tell stories that try to get at kinds of meaning that scientific reductionism cannot. It just so happens that these stories for the most part are the terrible form of indoctrination and stifling of thought that you portray . .



    . but I am also weary of the wholesale indoctrination and stifling of thought that can come from the myth of science



    [ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
  • Reply 60 of 77
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    ijerry: it might not matter to some of us how "Christian" debating is, we may just be here for the sake of argument and discussion or have other belief systems. This is a theism/atheism/agnosticism debate, not just an Atheism/Christian debate.



    Anyway: Jesus vs Pharisees?



    [quote]Not in order to do away with mystery, but, in order to do away with the logical attempt to render it logical. <hr></blockquote>



    So the Tractus is a logical attempt to render it illogical?



    [quote]maybe i should go get crucified so everyone'll worship me too!<hr></blockquote>



    Not recommended, the religions started vs. crucifixions rate is very low.
Sign In or Register to comment.