Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm a christian who believes in the Bible and it's command not to judge others. I won't judge people's souls but I do wonder about their minds. I can't comprehend why people find the idea of a creator hard to believe when we have such order (apart from suffering caused by humans) in the universe from atoms to galaxies. Science can't be applied to God but faith is what I'm discussing. Believing in God means that you believe we have a greater purpose than just survival. If you believe that there is no God there is no higher purpose for anything.

Saying that there is no God suggests that there is no right and wrong except what we define as right and wrong, so it is a strong statement indeed. It suggests that we should not fear judgement.

What prevents people from believing that were created with power and responsibility on purpose? Is it fear of being judged by the Creator? If that's not it I'd like to know what other possible reasons there are.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I can't comprehend why people find the idea of a creator hard to believe when we have such order (apart from suffering caused by humans) in the universe from atoms to galaxies.

People have told you dozens of times. At the very least you must be familiar with the arguments.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If you believe that there is no God there is no higher purpose for anything.

Why?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Saying that there is no God suggests that there is no right and wrong except what we define as right and wrong.

Why?

And further how would that really different from the Divine Command Theory which says there is no right and wrong except what we are told is right and wrong?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Saying that there is no God suggests that there is no right and wrong except what we define as right and wrong, so it is a strong statement indeed. It suggests that we should not fear judgement. Bingo.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Saying that there is no God suggests that there is no right and wrong except what we define as right and wrong, so it is a strong statement indeed. It suggests that we should not fear judgement.
Whereas in christianity, right and wrong is what God defines as right and wrong. I really don't see the difference.

I personally like Kant's idea on morality's origin.

He believed in a God but believed that God wasn't the Ultimate Source of morality, rather that God was good because He acted morally.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I personally like Kant's idea on morality's origin.

He believed in a God but believed that God wasn't the Ultimate Source of morality, rather that God was good because He acted morally.

And, coincidentally I'm sure, he and God agreed on everything. The categorical imperative is one of my favorite moral theories but I don't like the way Kant used it so much.

If I were them I would be.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
If I were them I would be.
No, if you were them you wouldn't believe in God after all.

That is true but I would see when I die that I was wrong so then it would be late.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
That is true but I would see when I die that I was wrong so then it would be late.

Perhaps God, being kind, will allow you a do-over. Or to repent after death.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
That is true but I would see when I die that I was wrong so then it would be late.
Unless they're right.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And, coincidentally I'm sure, he and God agreed on everything. The categorical imperative is one of my favorite moral theories but I don't like the way Kant used it so much.
Well God did make Kant in His image.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well God did make Kant in His image.

Really? I though he made Adam before Eve.

O-ho-ho, I'm so naughty.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really? I though he made Adam before Eve.

O-ho-ho, I'm so naughty.
I see what you did there.

I bet you could sell that as a bit.

doesn't god forgive though.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm a christian who believes in the Bible and it's command not to judge others. I won't judge people's souls but I do wonder about their minds. I can't comprehend why people find the idea of a creator hard to believe when we have such order (apart from suffering caused by humans) in the universe from atoms to galaxies. Science can't be applied to God but faith is what I'm discussing. Believing in God means that you believe we have a greater purpose than just survival. If you believe that there is no God there is no higher purpose for anything.

Saying that there is no God suggests that there is no right and wrong except what we define as right and wrong, so it is a strong statement indeed. It suggests that we should not fear judgement.

What prevents people from believing that were created with power and responsibility on purpose? Is it fear of being judged by the Creator? If that's not it I'd like to know what other possible reasons there are.


...just another person who can't comprehend how a person can have purpose and morality without God. A limited, insulated view. Not only is it possible, but it's easy. I don't feel a need to explain to you the myriad ways in which it is possible, because without an intrinsic understanding of how natural and simple it is, it would be like trying to explain a foreign language to a child who doesn't even know that other countries or languages exist.

But to answer the titular question, I doubt any atheist fears judgment. Why would they?

Originally posted by The MISTER
What prevents people from believing that were created with power and responsibility on purpose? Is it fear of being judged by the Creator? If that's not it I'd like to know what other possible reasons there are.

a lack of even remotely convincing evidence

Originally posted by inimalist
a lack of even remotely convincing evidence

Yes, and that. Most atheists aren't as they are because of any fear-based or indeed emotion-based motivation. For me it's a purely intellectual decision. There's no reason whatsoever to believe in any God, let alone the Christian one.

Why would an atheist be afraid of a being that they do not believe in? It's like being afraid of the boogity man.

What I want to know is if Atheists ever have Crisis of Non-Faith.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People have told you dozens of times. At the very least you must be familiar with the arguments.

And further how would that really different from the Divine Command Theory which says there is no right and wrong except what we are told is right and wrong?

I'm ready to entertain all arguments.

The Divine command theory is flawed. People have rebelled against what they have been taught was right even at the cost of their own lives. Right and wrong do not have to be taught to people for them to know which is which. People teach their children what they believe but it is almost never 100% of what their parents taught them. Another flaw in the Divine Command Theory is that not teaching children isn't an option unless you abandon them. Learning is part of living. Humans
obviously have their own individual ideas about what is right and wrong and it's rare to have two humans that say that they agree 100%
about what is right and wrong. If the Divine Command Theory had any merit then you would have many people that are exactly like each other in every way except appearance. That is not the case.
Even with a simple idea like "Love thy neighbor as thyself" There will be various different ideas about what that means to do.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm ready to entertain all arguments.

The Divine command theory is flawed. People have rebelled against what they have been taught was right even at the cost of their own lives. Right and wrong do not have to be taught to people for them to know which is which.

Ah, intuitionism. So were back to deontology.

But that's even more flawed. Not only do we have people that want to cause harm after being raised in a culture that forbids it, but there are cases of children being raised with little or no human contact who do not act in line with Christian moral theory. Or worse that, have you ever met a two year old? The only morality they can reasonably be aligned with is egosim.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Whereas in christianity, right and wrong is what God defines as right and wrong. I really don't see the difference.

Actually, in christianity God defines us as inherently corrupt. Born with a sin nature we will eventually do something that we should desire to be forgiven for. I know I have and I do believe that everyone else has also. Christians believe that God not only defines what is right and wrong, he created them both for the purpose of free will. Righteousness can't exist if you can't choose unrighteousness and free will can't exist if you cannot make the choice individually.

The difference between us and God is that we are the created not the creator. The reader of a book cannot explain the author's sincere intent better than the author.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Bingo. I understand. I do wonder though if you personally fear the judgement of the laws of men? For example do you fear being jailed or fined?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I personally like Kant's idea on morality's origin.

He believed in a God but believed that God wasn't the Ultimate Source of morality, rather that God was good because He acted morally. I like this idea as well. I just believe that God is the Ultimate Source. This idea of Kant's makes sense to me.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I understand. I do wonder though if you personally fear the judgement of the laws of men? For example do you fear being jailed or fined?

do yu really think that atheists don't fear jail because they don't believe in God?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Perhaps God, being kind, will allow you a do-over. Or to repent after death. I'm not sure whether you are joking or serious but I like the optimism if you're serious. In St. Mark 10:25 Jesus stated that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven.

They were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus replied, "With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

To me this suggests that God does what he wants to do. The do-over and repenting after death are truly in his hands according to this verse though I know many christians would tell me I'm taking it out of context. I believe that God knows best and will try to persuade his children to come to him in their hearts of their own free will. I believe that God is biased for us more than we are biased for our own children.

Originally posted by inimalist
do yu really think that atheists don't fear jail because they don't believe in God? Nope. That's why I said personally. I'm curious about individual ideas. I never group people, Atheists can't be identical through and through any more than any other groups that have one thing in common.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Nope. That's why I said personally. I'm curious about individual ideas. I never group people, Atheists can't be identical through and through any more than any other groups that have one thing in common.

well, the reason atheists would still fear the judgement of courts is because they believe courts exist and that their judgement will affect their lives. Seeing as they don't believe there is any heavenly "judge", there is no reason for them to fear heavenly judgement

Originally posted by Digi
...just another person who can't comprehend how a person can have purpose and morality without God. A limited, insulated view. Not only is it possible, but it's easy. I don't feel a need to explain to you the myriad ways in which it is possible, because without an intrinsic understanding of how natural and simple it is, it would be like trying to explain a foreign language to a child who doesn't even know that other countries or languages exist.

But to answer the titular question, I doubt any atheist fears judgment. Why would they? You seem like a smart person but you also seem like you detest the idea of a God. I can't comprehend something coming from nothing without something existing that can defy what is impossible. If you don't feel the need to explain any of your myriad ways then don't. Your analogy about explaining complex ideas to a child is very similar to how religious people avoid answering questions. I guess you don't feel like throwing your pearls before swine,huh? Well I appreciate you sparing me your high minded sermon, especially if it's filled with analogies that are obviously weak attempts at insults.

Regardless to what you may THINK I'm not trying to convert anyone. I care about people and I'd like to know why they think what they do when their thoughts seem extreme to me. I'm willing to answer peoples' questions when they feel my beliefs are extreme. Even if my answer is "I don't know" I'd rather admit that than pretend that I know everything.

Originally posted by inimalist
do yu really think that atheists don't fear jail because they don't believe in God?
Apparently being an Atheist makes you the Joker.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Actually, in christianity God defines us as inherently corrupt. Born with a sin nature we will eventually do something that we should desire to be forgiven for. I know I have and I do believe that everyone else has also. Christians believe that God not only defines what is right and wrong, he created them both for the purpose of free will. Righteousness can't exist if you can't choose unrighteousness and free will can't exist if you cannot make the choice individually.

The difference between us and God is that we are the created not the creator. The reader of a book cannot explain the author's sincere intent better than the author.
That is exactly what I just said. God defines things as right or wrong. I don't see how this in any way escapes the issue that right and wrong are based on definitions.

I was created by my parents, but I don't reflect all of their views as you pointed out. I define morality based on what I feel is logical and conducive to a functioning, free society.

I'll answer the question of why an atheist might be afraid of judgement. Most humans are and atheists are humans. Convincing yourself that there is nothing to fear is sometimes an important part of proceeding with something that you WANT to do, for example driving or riding a roller coaster. That's why.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That is exactly what I just said. God defines things as right or wrong. I don't see how this in any way escapes the issue that right and wrong are based on definitions.

I was created by my parents, but I don't reflect all of their views as you pointed out. I define morality based on what I feel is logical and conducive to a functioning, free society. That is good. What I'm saying is that humans are not worthy to judge YOU or anyone else for that matter. Only God is worthy as he knows whether you are living the life that you believe is righteous or not.

Originally posted by The MISTER
That is good. What I'm saying is that humans are not worthy to judge YOU or anyone else for that matter. Only God is worthy as he knows whether you are living the life that you believe is righteous or not.
I myself know when I do something I feel is correct. God doesn't factor into it at all.

And humans are quite definitely worthy to judge, as long as they can apply a logical argument. I used to believe in the death sentence, but people convinced me otherwise.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, the reason atheists would still fear the judgement of courts is because they believe courts exist and that their judgement will affect their lives. Seeing as they don't believe there is any heavenly "judge", there is no reason for them to fear heavenly judgement I understand that many atheists would agree with you. I know that there are some people, atheists or not, that have NO fear of the judgement of the courts. I was curious as to how Lordlucien feels. I do appreciate your sharing your thoughts on the matter. I'm going to respond later but I'm putting my son to bed after watching our show. I just want you all to know that I'm responding to each post as best I can.

As athiests don't believe in any kind of god - so I doubt that there are any athiests running about scared of any kind of god.

it's kind of an oxymoron?

Originally posted by The MISTER
I know that there are some people, atheists or not, that have NO fear of the judgement of the courts

Yes, we call these people "billionaires".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, we call these people "billionaires". Damn good example. yes

Originally posted by King Kandy
I myself know when I do something I feel is correct. God doesn't factor into it at all.

And humans are quite definitely worthy to judge, as long as they can apply a logical argument. I used to believe in the death sentence, but people convinced me otherwise. You're right about God not being a factor in what choices you make. If he was then you wouldn't have free will. Humans will kill people that they don't understand so I don't think that they're worthy to judge as if they are God. You strengthen my statement that they're not worthy to judge souls (that's the judgement that I mean) because you are convinced that they are not even qualified to judge whether or not a human should be exterminated as a virus would be, regardless of the damage said human has caused and has the potential to cause. Souls (If you believe in them) are eternal and lives are finite.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're right about God not being a factor in what choices you make. If he was then you wouldn't have free will. Humans will kill people that they don't understand so I don't think that they're worthy to judge as if they are God. You strengthen my statement that they're not worthy to judge souls (that's the judgement that I mean) because you are convinced that they are not even qualified to judge whether or not a human should be exterminated as a virus would be, regardless of the damage said human has caused and has the potential to cause. Souls (If you believe in them) are eternal and lives are finite.
I believe that human's "ability" to judge can only be based on whether their decision is logically sound; in this case, does killing people actually reduce the suffering caused to the world? Statistics would lead me to believe not. I do believe humans are worthy to judge based on logical reasons, but no human can judge others based on moral reasons.

In the death sentence case, humans are qualified to judge--and aside from the US, most 1st world countries have decided against the death sentence. I believe their arguments, so I believe that they made a correct judgment in that case. The US system, I do not think has strong arguments, so it cannot be the basis for judgment.

I don't believe in souls, and so for me their existence really has no impact on this issue.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah, intuitionism. So were back to deontology.

But that's even more flawed. Not only do we have people that want to cause harm after being raised in a culture that forbids it, but there are cases of children being raised with little or no human contact who do not act in line with Christian moral theory. Or worse that, have you ever met a two year old? The only morality they can reasonably be aligned with is egosim. How is the idea that you can tell whether what you are doing to someone is wrong based on how you would receive the action flawed? The people in the examples you use have free wills to behave as THEY choose. Their upbringing can definitely have much to do with their behavior for sure. The fact remains that humans learn quickly what is considered pleasant or unpleasant to themselves. Using this as a guide for interaction with other humans is optional, thus the free will.

Originally posted by The MISTER
How is the idea that you can tell whether what you are doing to someone is wrong based on how you would receive the action flawed? The people in the examples you use have free wills to behave as THEY choose. Their upbringing can definitely have much to do with their behavior for sure. The fact remains that humans learn quickly what is considered pleasant or unpleasant to themselves. Using this as a guide for interaction with other humans is optional, thus the free will.

Right and when they aren't influenced by culture they don't act in a way you would consider ethical. So then morality isn't hard coded into us otherwise a person who isn't being altered by culture would fit your morals.

The only other option is that there is a huge conspiracy by everyone on the planet to deny Christian morality when they know it's true.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I believe that human's "ability" to judge can only be based on whether their decision is logically sound; in this case, does killing people actually reduce the suffering caused to the world? Statistics would lead me to believe not. I do believe humans are worthy to judge based on logical reasons, but no human can judge others based on moral reasons.

In the death sentence case, humans are qualified to judge--and aside from the US, most 1st world countries have decided against the death sentence. I believe their arguments, so I believe that they made a correct judgment in that case. The US system, I do not think has strong arguments, so it cannot be the basis for judgment.

I don't believe in souls, and so for me their existence really has no impact on this issue. Humans have various ideas of what is logically sound and it definitely depends on their level of intelligence. Perhaps Hitler felt that his logic was sound. I don't even know what logic he used and I disagree with whatever it was. The fact that many people agreed with his logic greatly diminishes my faith in human logic across the board. Statistics are not important when most humans make their decisions and I'd bet that you don't apply them to every decision that you make either.

As far as souls go, most of the world believes in them. You are an individual however and have the God given right to say that you don't believe that the world is round, or that the sun is a star. I'm sure that there is someone who won't believe those things no matter what evidence you provide them with.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Humans have various ideas of what is logically sound and it definitely depends on their level of intelligence. Perhaps Hitler felt that his logic was sound. I don't even know what logic he used and I disagree with whatever it was. The fact that many people agreed with his logic greatly diminishes my faith in human logic across the board. Statistics are not important when most humans make their decisions and I'd bet that you don't apply them to every decision that you make either.
The people who believed it was logically sound were wrong, or were given wrong information to base their decisions on. Disagreeing with something without understanding it is simply incorrect. Maybe there was a virus that could only be stopped by killing jews. Maybe Hitler was framed, and actually the Russians did it. These aren't true of course, but without applying some form of logical analysis, you'd never no.

It is true that statistics do not play a role in most decision made; like I said earlier, not every human perspective has a sound argument to to support it. This, however, is something to be avoided not reinforced.

Originally posted by The MISTER
As far as souls go, most of the world believes in them. You are an individual however and have the God given right to say that you don't believe that the world is round, or that the sun is a star. I'm sure that there is someone who won't believe those things no matter what evidence you provide them with.
This is called argumentum ad populum. It can't be used as an argument because it has intrinsic logical flaws.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Right and when they aren't influenced by culture they don't act in a way you would consider ethical. So then morality isn't hard coded into us otherwise a person who isn't being altered by culture would fit your morals.

The only other option is that there is a huge conspiracy by everyone on the planet to deny Christian morality when they know it's true. How can a person not be influenced by culture? Perhaps they aren't altered by culture but who are you to say what the individuals will and won't do? I would never suggest that a human can't treat others in any way they choose. We ALL have free will unless other humans take away the freedom to use that will. Even in extreme situations like that, humans have still shown the ability to exert their will. Kunta Kente said that his name was Toby after many lashes but some humans would have died first, exerting their will to the end.

Originally posted by King Kandy


It is true that statistics do not play a role in most decision made; like I said earlier, not every human perspective has a sound argument to to support it. This, however, is something to be avoided not reinforced. You are absolutely correct. That is why I started this thread. Unless I'm incorrect atheists' logic is that something came from nothing. Or perhaps that nothing isn't a possibility despite the lack of a power that can defy the impossible. The energy that we see had no origin, it has existed eternally. The fact that humans can make individual choices and rule over EVERY other creature on the planet (Something that no other creature has EVER done) is coincidental, and they have no responsibility to behave considerably to others.

These ideas seem illogical to me no matter how much you dress them up.

Originally posted by King Kandy


This is called argumentum ad populum. It can't be used as an argument because it has intrinsic logical flaws. You're right of course. However you were stating your beliefs, not provable facts. I was just making you aware that your beliefs are not something that anyone can force you to support with sound logic.

Originally posted by The MISTER
How can a person not be influenced by culture?

By not being raised by people. There are a few reliable instances of feral children being found.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Perhaps they aren't altered by culture but who are you to say what the individuals will and won't do? I would never suggest that a human can't treat others in any way they choose. We ALL have free will unless other humans take away the freedom to use that will. Even in extreme situations like that, humans have still shown the ability to exert their will. Kunta Kente said that his name was Toby after many lashes but some humans would have died first, exerting their will to the end.

Not a good metaphor. We know that Kunta Kente has that name to begin with. We don't know that people all subscribe to Christian moral theory to begin with, you have to prove that.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Unless I'm incorrect atheists' logic is that something came from nothing.

Scientists have ways of determining the origin of the universe that don't depend on God. But we don't even have to understand those to be atheists.

1) Something exists.
2) It had to come from somewhere.
3) We don't know where it came from.
4) There is not fourth step, we don't know where it came from so the only thing a reasonable person can profess is ignorance. Crediting it to God is exactly as reasonable as crediting it to George Washington.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The fact that humans can make individual choices and rule over EVERY other creature on the planet (Something that no other creature has EVER done) is coincidental, and they have no responsibility to behave considerably to others.

Every part of that, that isn't factually untrue is absurd.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I used to believe in the death sentence, but people convinced me otherwise.

So was your belief in the death sentence weak in the the first place, or are you just malleable/easily convinced?

Originally posted by The MISTER
You are absolutely correct. That is why I started this thread. Unless I'm incorrect atheists' logic is that something came from nothing.
We are seeing some evidence that this can occur, but i'd avoid making conclusive judgments yet.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Or perhaps that nothing isn't a possibility despite the lack of a power that can defy the impossible.
I don't understand your argument here. If something is impossible, that idea should be supported by the lack of impossible beings, not in spite of it.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The energy that we see had no origin, it has existed eternally.
This seems like a definite possibility, but I don't know if this was the case or not.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The fact that humans can make individual choices and rule over EVERY other creature on the planet (Something that no other creature has EVER done)
Humans make individual choices to the extent that all sentient animals do. We see many of the logical and emotional issues in humans crop up in Great Apes, regularly. Deciding that humans are "more" than others requires to use scales I don't believe are logically supported. How do you define what being is "more" capable of making choices?

We do not rule every creature on the planet. Right now, the flu is kicking my ass. How can you possibly define us "ruling" all animals? We aren't better in terms of population size, we aren't the best in terms of altering the environment, and we don't have direct control over the sizable majority of lifeforms on earth. By what can you say we rule them?

Originally posted by The MISTER
and they have no responsibility to behave considerably to others.
We've posted pages of explanations showing that this is not what we believe. You apparently have learned nothing from this thread, even though its specifically about this issue.

Originally posted by The MISTER
These ideas seem illogical to me no matter how much you dress them up.
The thing is, that's not how logic works. You can't just say something "seems" illogical and leave it at that. You actually have to support your ideas with logic itself.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're right of course. However you were stating your beliefs, not provable facts. I was just making you aware that your beliefs are not something that anyone can force you to support with sound logic.
I didn't claim anything. I took the null position, and proving a negative is not part of the burden of proof. Your the one claiming a soul exists, so, you should be able to show it to be true, or else it is not a logically derived position.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So was your belief in the death sentence weak in the the first place, or are you just malleable/easily convinced?
Or maybe I don't think its a sign of weakness to change when shown new evidence. That's the scientific way to approach things. If you don't consider what others say, then you're the one with weak will; you have no confidence in your position to actually let it be tested.

@ King Kandy
First off I'm interested in the evidence that something can come from nothing. Please elaborate. My statement about a power that can do the impossible was made due to my being unaware that we have any evidence that something can come from nothing. You stated that energy existing eternally seems like a possibility but you don't know. I can relate to the feeling of not knowing what may be the case or not. It's annoying to me. Since my faith in God is one of those rare areas where I do feel certainty, I am exceedingly interested in why it seems like flawed logic to people that I consider intelligent. It almost seems to me that the more intelligent people get the more they abandon the faith that they once had in the fact that there is a divine order to things.

Humans can choose to teach good or evil through actions due to the fact that they are aware of how their actions are perceived by their kin. No other sentient animal species can choose to pursue it's own imaginations, outside of what it has been shown. Are humans more capable of making choices? Humans have dominated every animal that we have come across. The flu may be kicking your ass but I'd put money on you killing it. The virus can't capture some humans and dissect them constantly searching for a permanent advantage over humans. Humans are kicking the flu's ass and not in numbers of course but in influence. Humans could choose to purposely obliterate the planet with bombs and attempt sustained survival on an experimental space colony that theoretically can last ten million years. The creatures of earth are more at the mercy of humans than ever before. The environment has been in danger of us since we first wielded fire as ours, so we have long been capable of making more choices than the other sentient species. As far as ruling over them consistently, making choices about their future is the norm.

Why would you presume that you represent all those that call themselves atheists.? I surely don't represent all those that call themselves christians. I am definitely not suggesting that all atheists are anything. I already stated that I'm concerned with individuals. I'm glad that you feel a sense of responsibility, but do you truly believe that all christians or atheists do? All I was suggesting is that an atheist can state that any action they might take is OK as long as they survive for survival is all that matters to any animal. Humans and bacteria are equals when concerning responsibility as survival is for the fittest. A person calling himself a christian can choose to state this. I just see it making more sense when it's coming from someone who says ( whether they believe it or not ) that there is nobody to answer to for their behavior after death.

The ideas I mentioned earlier are illogical to me. And I am supporting my ideas with logic as you can see. And I'll do my best to dehumanize the process as I don't want my bias influencing me while doing this.

Evidence that the soul exists. Hypocrisy directed upon others is evil and corrupts the soul of the people who do it. Treating others in ways that you wouldn't want yourself treated is obviously wrong and we know it, but it does come naturally. We have the ability to stave off this natural selfishness and deal with others sincerely as we have an emotional connection with all other life forms that no other creature can boast. We can imagine how others feel. We can purposely seek to help or harm and we will do one or the other. Doing nothing equates to harming others with inaction. Because we MUST choose then it is logical to believe that there is a penalty for choosing to harm others.

one question; why is faith good, in any sense?

Originally posted by Sappho
one question; why is faith good, in any sense?
faith/belief

I suppose it would depend on what you have faith/believe in. Having faith that you are safe can reduce stress. Having faith that you are a being the best parent that you can be can create a sense of accomplishment and sometimes the desire to maintain your extra efforts in difficult areas. Some people have faith that their personal pride is WORTH killing for and they plan to share their beliefs with anyone who upsets their ego.

Personally I have faith that good and evil really do exist and that good will always win over evil. Sound corny? Is that a bad thing? All jokes aside i'm going to be completely honest so this won't sound all technical and proper or logical. Wouldn't it take an all powerful one to make people pay for being horrible, and vicious and cruel. People have been so very cruel to each other and they didn't have to be they chose to be nasty and mean to each other and kill their families and anything terrible you can imagine. And all while they had the choice to be kind when they could. There's no way that I could ever believe that some people only existed just to suffer at the mercies of the cruelest creatures ever known....and cruel by choice.

Sorry about the rant! I think it was a good question!

Originally posted by The MISTER

As far as souls go, most of the world believes in them. You are an individual however and have the God given right to say that you don't believe that the world is round, or that the sun is a star. I'm sure that there is someone who won't believe those things no matter what evidence you provide them with.

Perhaps incidentally, but perhaps not, the people now believing in souls are subscribing to the same ideology as the people who steadfastly refused to believe that the earth is round and the sun a star....interesting.

And you can give evidence that the earth is round, you can give evidence for what the sun is, there's not single piece of evidence that "souls" exist...they are extremely vaguely defined as well.

Originally posted by Mindship
Unless they're right.

Or like I said wrong.Which they are but they will find out on Judgement day.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Or like I said wrong.Which they are but they will find out on Judgement day.

But what if the Muslims are right. Then you'll find out on judgement day, do you not fear that?


Anyways, perhaps I am a bit different than the other atheists here, but I do have some fear of God, it's not very prominent and it doesn't affect my life at all, but the threat is so insanely great and evil that as a skeptic I must worry if it was true, as unlikely as that is. It reminds me of the afterlife discussion we had with Digi and inimalist, the threat of eternal torture is to great in my opinion to outweigh the chance of eternal bliss. I'd rather have no life than that gamble. Though it is a gamble everyone has, cause everyone's God could be the wrong one and another right one be the one to torture you.

Not that it matters, though I can't make myself belief in God, as a product of my experiences it is impossible for me to choose to go against something that feels so contrary to everything I belief in and have seen to be true. One of the many flaws of Pascal's wager, another being the earlier one of there not only being one option of a God.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But what if the Muslims are right. Then you'll find out on judgement day, do you not fear that?

Or hell, just hypothetically what if there untold billions of alien cultures who share similar beliefs about judgment?

Pascal's Wager is a really dumb argument when you get down to it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Or maybe I don't think its a sign of weakness to change when shown new evidence. That's the scientific way to approach things. If you don't consider what others say, then you're the one with weak will; you have no confidence in your position to actually let it be tested.

He's done the same to me as well. In reply to my relating my search through religious beliefs to come to the point I'm at now, he called me clearly confused, because I had wandered near or through numerous different belief systems. Inquisitive is probably the more correct term, and amenable to changes in belief based on superior reasoning/evidence/logic.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Actually, in christianity God defines us as inherently corrupt.

ihave a question. If the above is true, why wouldn't God just wipe the inherent corruptness from my new born babies soul? Wouldn't that be the moral, ever loving, all compasionate thing to do?

Does the FACT that man is on average moe moral than your christian God could EVER be, not flip the switches that tell you that EVEN if God existed, there's nothing that makes him worthy of your worship.

You're a dad, would you ever construct a torture chamber in your house and threaten to leave your son in there FOR ETERNITY if he didnt love you? Right and wrong is what we make it, and by we i mean us as humanity, God doesn't know a lick about being human, if he did...

My level of morality follows the path of sanctity of life, don't hurt others, don't kill others, help those who need it, raise my son to be good, love my wife, be faithful , NOT because i read it in some book, but because we live ina society where id like to be treated the way i treat others, more or less. Thats why we make our own morals and pick our own right and wrong, because WE have to live together, God doesn't even factor into the decision. How could he, he sacrificed his own son, for sins he KNEW would happen, then proceeds to curse every innocent child with a damned soul headed for obliteration unless we say we love him for eternity.

A douche by any other name.

Originally posted by The MISTER
@ King Kandy
First off I'm interested in the evidence that something can come from nothing. Please elaborate. My statement about a power that can do the impossible was made due to my being unaware that we have any evidence that something can come from nothing. You stated that energy existing eternally seems like a possibility but you don't know. I can relate to the feeling of not knowing what may be the case or not. It's annoying to me. Since my faith in God is one of those rare areas where I do feel certainty, I am exceedingly interested in why it seems like flawed logic to people that I consider intelligent. It almost seems to me that the more intelligent people get the more they abandon the faith that they once had in the fact that there is a divine order to things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

Like I said, I don't know all the physics behind this, or really whether its relevant to the origin of the universe, but there are certain effects related to this phenomena where particles more or less arise out of nothing.

I don't know with certainty, because I have not seen a strong logical argument about whether the energy of the universe has always existed, or was arose spontaneously from nothing. However, I have seen even less of a strong argument in favor of god creating the universe, so I cannot believe that either. Right now, this is an area of research being discussed; from what I have heard, current advances have made spontaneous creation plausible. I haven't read them enough to decide on that one.

The more intelligent people are, the more people realize that that "fact" is flawed. There is no "divine order" to the universe. We see things as orderly because of something referred to as the anthropic principle.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Humans can choose to teach good or evil through actions due to the fact that they are aware of how their actions are perceived by their kin. No other sentient animal species can choose to pursue it's own imaginations, outside of what it has been shown. Are humans more capable of making choices? Humans have dominated every animal that we have come across. The flu may be kicking your ass but I'd put money on you killing it. The virus can't capture some humans and dissect them constantly searching for a permanent advantage over humans. Humans are kicking the flu's ass and not in numbers of course but in influence. Humans could choose to purposely obliterate the planet with bombs and attempt sustained survival on an experimental space colony that theoretically can last ten million years. The creatures of earth are more at the mercy of humans than ever before. The environment has been in danger of us since we first wielded fire as ours, so we have long been capable of making more choices than the other sentient species. As far as ruling over them consistently, making choices about their future is the norm.
That's just completely false. Many animals pursue their own imagination (any animal playing can show you that), your idea you've been continually claiming, you have not given it one shred of substantiation other than it is what you wish to believe. We have not cured AIDs, or figured out a way to remove many parasites, nor could we have much impact on a variety of bacteria, that exist all over the earth and permeate everything. Even if we nuked the world with everything we had, plenty of bacteria would linger and survive us, insulated in strange environments and able to survive the harshest of conditions.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why would you presume that you represent all those that call themselves atheists.? I surely don't represent all those that call themselves christians. I am definitely not suggesting that all atheists are anything. I already stated that I'm concerned with individuals. I'm glad that you feel a sense of responsibility, but do you truly believe that all christians or atheists do? All I was suggesting is that an atheist can state that any action they might take is OK as long as they survive for survival is all that matters to any animal. Humans and bacteria are equals when concerning responsibility as survival is for the fittest. A person calling himself a christian can choose to state this. I just see it making more sense when it's coming from someone who says ( whether they believe it or not ) that there is nobody to answer to for their behavior after death.
You may feel atheists are more likely to show no compunction for their actions, but this is not true. Digi even showed a study earlier, demonstrating that atheists in a classroom were not only no more likely to cheat or copy than christian students, but in fact did it less; the atheists demonstrated more morality than the christians. inimalist in the GD forum (he will hopefully elaborate on this), demonstrated that people who believe they are following perfect morals are far more likely to lie and then rationalize it away.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Evidence that the soul exists. Hypocrisy directed upon others is evil and corrupts the soul of the people who do it. Treating others in ways that you wouldn't want yourself treated is obviously wrong and we know it, but it does come naturally. We have the ability to stave off this natural selfishness and deal with others sincerely as we have an emotional connection with all other life forms that no other creature can boast. We can imagine how others feel. We can purposely seek to help or harm and we will do one or the other. Doing nothing equates to harming others with inaction. Because we MUST choose then it is logical to believe that there is a penalty for choosing to harm others.
This is in no way evidence that the soul exists. I do not see what makes that "logical" in the slightest.

Originally posted by King Kandy
inimalist in the GD forum (he will hopefully elaborate on this), demonstrated that people who believe they are following perfect morals are far more likely to lie and then rationalize it away.

there was no religious connotation to the study, and I don't personally believe that more religious people are sure of their morality than are atheists . Many religions have "man is flawed" as a very important belief.

There is some extension of this in other studies too. People, when told a ghost was seen in a room (or any other story where the effect is "someone invisible is watching you" were less likely to cheat on a test. So, in that way, belief might actually make you more moral, so long as you actually believe God is watching and judging you, literally every moment.

Religion, god, scripture, etc, can prime both empathic behaviour and violence, as measured in experimental settings, depending on what aspect of religion is used to influence people (the violence prime from religious sources is much more powerful than from secular sources), and this holds for both religious and non-religious people.

Ultimately, I don't think data really supports, one way or another, that religion makes people more or less moral, though I'm not familiar with the study digi cited.

I know that I must seem like a judgemental person but I really am not. I don't even believe that there's a difference between atheists and christians except what they say they believe. People calling themselves either are apt to suddenly call themselves the other. One thing I noted while reading is that perhaps atheists behave better than people who claim to know God. I can see how this might be true as atheists won't claim that their actions are supported by a diety and feel solely responsible for whatever they do. Maybe more people who call themselves atheists will end up in heaven than the people who call themselves christians. I don't even care If you guys respond with " There is no heaven!! " I believe that there is and I see the potential for all people who take responsibility for their behavior to go. I know that the in the Bible God asks, " How can you claim to love me whom you have never seen and hate your brother whom you see every day?" I would daresay that religious people are far far more judgmental than atheists. I know because they've condemned me before and even accused me of being demon possessed because I wouldn't just agree with them. Maybe atheists aren't concerned with judgement at all because they're sick of all the lies and hypocrisy that come from the religious camp. I had one lady tell me that I wasn't saved evil because you have to be taught by someone else how to interpret the scriptures. I don't think I've ever been as disgusted by a comment. I wouldn't say such a thing about the most outspoken atheist. It will take me some time to respond to questions but I'll do my best.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Or maybe I don't think its a sign of weakness to change when shown new evidence. That's the scientific way to approach things. If you don't consider what others say, then you're the one with weak will; you have no confidence in your position to actually let it be tested.

Ok, but there's nothing very scientific about one's personal stance on the death penalty. It's a philosophical/moral stance.

So then help me out here; how exactly did you decide to change your mind when it comes to execution? Did you have some ultra-liberal professor who convinced you to 'see the light', or what?

Originally posted by Digi
He's done the same to me as well. In reply to my relating my search through religious beliefs to come to the point I'm at now, he called me clearly confused, because I had wandered near or through numerous different belief systems. Inquisitive is probably the more correct term, and amenable to changes in belief based on superior reasoning/evidence/logic.

Not confused, but "inquisitive"? It seems that not knowing where to start at a buffet would be a good analogy. "Hmm.....so many choices, but which one's for me?"

I also have changed my mind about things in the past when confronted with evidence, or an otherwise sufficient reason to do so. But I dont join the next bandwagon craze willy-nilly.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ok, but there's nothing very scientific about one's personal stance on the death penalty. It's a philosophical/moral stance.

Nah, that's stupid. Oviously morality can be influenced by a logical argument. "Reason is the slave of passion" after all, you use your reason to reach the goals your passions give you. If you believe, morally, that the fewest possible number of people should die and someone convinces you that the death penalty doesn't reduce the rate of murder then it makes sense to change your position.

More generally if you decide to divorce morality from reason you'll end up behaving in ways that contradict your morals. Like for example:

"Killing is wrong but stabbing people is okay."
"But stabbing people has a good chance of killing them."
"Sorry, your argument is too scientific for me. This is an issue of morality not reason."

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I also have changed my mind about things in the past when confronted with evidence, or an otherwise sufficient reason to do so. But I dont join the next bandwagon craze willy-nilly.

Yeah, that new craze that they call atheism. Why I recall just last month when that fellow Socrates was talking about it for the first time.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then help me out here; how exactly did you decide to change your mind when it comes to execution? Did you have some ultra-liberal professor who convinced you to 'see the light', or what?

why do you have such a poor opinion of someone changing their mind on an issue?

do you really think it is more respectable to put your fingers in your ears and deny things that make sense?

like, there are arguments I've made on these forums, I'm sure even recently, that I wouldn't agree with now. Am I simply doing what some aging hippy douche wanted in your mind?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not confused, but "inquisitive"? It seems that not knowing where to start at a buffet would be a good analogy. "Hmm.....so many choices, but which one's for me?"

I also have changed my mind about things in the past when confronted with evidence, or an otherwise sufficient reason to do so. But I dont join the next bandwagon craze willy-nilly.

This is why you're so hard to talk to. You often manage to falsely frame what I've said in a way that attempts to demean me or my position, or it looks at only part of the argument instead of its context.

What I can't comprehend in this particular instance is why it seems like it's so deplorable to you for someone to look at everything available to them when making a decision. Frankly, it's simply ignorance not to make yourself aware of the best arguments for and against every religion if you want to take them seriously (and by proxy, to take your decision seriously). After leaving Christianity, my search was a basic exercise in personal rigor. How was I to dismiss something or endorse it, without truly understanding it? You're mistaking bandwagon-jumping for thorough analysis (and there were precious few bandwagons I actually jumped on. It was mostly, as is due in most logical analysis, tentative acceptance of various reasonable possibilities until convincing evidence is brought against them. I doubt I could have truly called myself any particular religion between my original Catholicism and my current Atheism).

You don't particularly care for me, and the feeling is somewhat mutual. I understand that. We've always been able to treat each other civilly, and I respect you for that at least, and this instance is no exception. But your posts on this make you seem close-minded, at best. Giving lip service to your own "changes" (whatever they might be) are a sorry excuse when you are so unjustly critical of anyone's else's search for knowledge.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nah, that's stupid. Oviously morality can be influenced by a logical argument. "Reason is the slave of passion" after all, you use your reason to reach the goals your passions give you. If you believe, morally, that the fewest possible number of people should die and someone convinces you that the death penalty doesn't reduce the rate of murder then it makes sense to change your position.

More generally if you decide to divorce morality from reason you'll end up behaving in ways that contradict your morals. Like for example:

"Killing is wrong but stabbing people is okay."
"But stabbing people has a good chance of killing them."
"Sorry, your argument is too scientific for me. This is an issue of morality not reason."

Yeah, that new craze that they call atheism. Why I recall just last month when that fellow Socrates was talking about it for the first time.

Well, obviously logic can influence a person's morality, but they don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand.

You can also stab someone in the hand or foot without mortally endangering them.

And by the way, Socrates wasn't actually an Atheist.

Originally posted by inimalist
why do you have such a poor opinion of someone changing their mind on an issue?

do you really think it is more respectable to put your fingers in your ears and deny things that make sense?

like, there are arguments I've made on these forums, I'm sure even recently, that I wouldn't agree with now. Am I simply doing what some aging hippy douche wanted in your mind?

What makes you think I have a poor opinion of changing minds? I've changed my mind in the past about various things; big deal.

I don't stick my fingers in my ears; I'm always willing to hear the other side. But if I'm not convinced then I don't budge. There's a big difference between being pig-headed and awaiting a good reason (I'm the latter).

It depends on the arguments, and how deep they are. Wanting sushi one day, and then Mexican the next is one thing. But drastically changing your moral and/or religious views often and with little prodding is just...well, a person drifting in the ocean with lots of wind but no sail, oar, or rudder.

Originally posted by inimalist
Ultimately, I don't think data really supports, one way or another, that religion makes people more or less moral, though I'm not familiar with the study digi cited.

Missed this, will try to dig up the source. It's from a magazine, which makes google-ing it difficult.

Originally posted by Digi
Missed this, will try to dig up the source. It's from a magazine, which makes google-ing it difficult.

Bing.com or texting kgb > Google

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What makes you think I have a poor opinion of changing minds? I've changed my mind in the past about various things; big deal.

I don't stick my fingers in my ears; I'm always willing to hear the other side. But if I'm not convinced then I don't budge. There's a big difference between being pig-headed and awaiting a good reason (I'm the latter).

It depends on the arguments, and how deep they are. Wanting sushi one day, and then Mexican the next is one thing. But drastically changing your moral and/or religious views often and with little prodding is just...well, a person drifting in the ocean with lots of wind but no sail, oar, or rudder.

you appear to be mocking King Kandy for, at some point in his life, deciding that he no longer agreed with the death penalty

I'm certainly not accusing you of any of those things, but why would you be critical of someone for finding a better understanding of what they believe?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, obviously logic can influence a person's morality, but they don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand.

In fact it doesn't seem like the idea occurred to you at all.

Also, they really should go hand-in-hand. Like even if you're morally opposed to reason you'd have to use reason to arrive at the conclusion that acting irrationally is moral.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You can also stab someone in the hand or foot without mortally endangering them.

They're certainly more likely to die than if you hadn't stabbed them. But even if they weren't fixing the example is quite trivial.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And by the way, Socrates wasn't actually an Atheist.

Made some good arguments for it, though.

Originally posted by inimalist
you appear to be mocking King Kandy for, at some point in his life, deciding that he no longer agreed with the death penalty

I'm certainly not accusing you of any of those things, but why would you be critical of someone for finding a better understanding of what they believe?

How about we let him answer the question, since it was meant for him in first place...

(And a different understanding doesn't mean its a better one)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How about we let him answer the question, since it was meant for him in first place...

(And a different understanding doesn't mean its a better one)

that depends on how you define better...

do you claim to know better than KK what his own opinions are?

I'm not trying to goad you or anything, so no worries or anything, I just think you might be being a little harsh on this point. Hell, I remember being 19 and CONVINCED I was going to discover psychic powers

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ok, but there's nothing very scientific about one's personal stance on the death penalty. It's a philosophical/moral stance.

So then help me out here; how exactly did you decide to change your mind when it comes to execution? Did you have some ultra-liberal professor who convinced you to 'see the light', or what?
No, I try to take a scientific approach, based on the axiom that the purpose of punishment is to reduce crime. From that perspective, I realized that statistically, the death sentence did nothing to benefit of this.

I changed my mind when I received statistics indicating the death sentence did nothing to minimize crime and suffering. Your idea that I was brainwashed by some "ultra-liberal" as your first response is borderline trolling.

Morality can be very much like mathematics in a way, that you choose some axioms and derive your complete morality logically from it. Even reevaluating the axioms seems like a smart thing from time to time as ones personal feelings change, but the way King Kandy said he changed his mind on the death penalty is definitely the right thing to do. If you are convinced by reason that one of your derived beliefs hasn't been sound on the basis of your core belief the only reasonable thing is to change your opinion on that to make it intrinsically logical, if you can't do that for whatever reason perhaps one of the axioms you choose really isn't something you actually fully belief or you have to weigh opposing ideals differently. Ultimately it would be nice if one could explain their beliefs based on some core morals, which are of course, like everything, subjective.

That's how a fair discussion based on logical argument (as opposed to a debate) should work, too.

I love this video, and it's relevant to this topic. Props to bardock for posting it in the atheism thread.

At one point there is a direct citation of the reasoning this thread was created upon (that atheists fear judgement) , or rather a refutation of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Youtube's QualiaSoup and TheraminTrees put things often very clear

sNDZb0KtJDk

Also, anyone who has ever been told they have some misconceptions about atheism should watch this video.

That's a very good video.

I have to go to work guys but Happy thanksgiving to you all! We don't always have to agree for for us to wish each other the best! Have a good time with your families and make the best of the holiday! Catch you later!

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm a christian who believes in the Bible and it's command not to judge others. I won't judge people's souls but I do wonder about their minds.

Are you one of those people who pretend they're stupid and aren't just trolling the hell out of people because you do it with what you think comes across as being polite?

No, atheists aren't afraid of judgement from what you define as god. That's the whole point of being an atheist. What bothers me is that they aren't afraid of your concept of god, but they are afraid to admit they're atheists.

Originally posted by skekUng
Are you one of those people who pretend they're stupid and aren't just trolling the hell out of people because you do it with what you think comes across as being polite?

No, atheists aren't afraid of judgement from what you define as god. That's the whole point of being an atheist. What bothers me is that they aren't afraid of your concept of god, but they are afraid to admit they're atheists. You don't know me very well! I could give a rats a#@ about seeming polite. I just don't jump to conclusions like a retard. More people should try it. Expressing hasty judgments is a dunce move, wouldn't you agree? If the topic wasn't important to me then I wouldn't be being as serious as I've been on this thread. The idea was to understand atheists better. I've learned that they have valid reasons for not wanting to hear any "religions" ideas of where they came from and for what reasons. I explained this new appreciation for the perspective of those who call themselves atheist to a cousin over the holiday.

Also, who elected you the atheist president? Some people may have become atheists because they resented the fear tactics of some churches. Eternal torture is explained to young children. Dismissing the idea might be relieving, I was curious as to whether it was a factor.

Especially when the no God theory essentially equals that we're a one in a zillion freak occurrence that has no uniqueness. Our luck seperates us from the creatures that do not enslave other species and reshape the total terrain for their habitat. This existence is not possibly a gift that we need appreciate being given, it is only a rare opportunity to be exploited to the fullest.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Especially when the no God theory essentially equals that we're a one in a zillion freak occurrence that has no uniqueness. Our luck seperates us from the creatures that do not enslave other species and reshape the total terrain for their habitat. This existence is not possibly a gift that we need appreciate being given, it is only a rare opportunity to be exploited to the fullest.

That sounds dangerously close to an argument often used by creationists to attack evolution, saying that we couldn't just be here by "chance." A thorough knowledge of natural selection actually yields numerous credible possibilities for our current existence, none of them owing to a higher deity.

Originally posted by Digi
That sounds dangerously close to an argument often used by creationists to attack evolution, saying that we couldn't just be here by "chance." A thorough knowledge of natural selection actually yields numerous credible possibilities for our current existence, none of them owing to a higher deity. I tend to refer to multiple-universe theories (eg, chaotic inflation), when I encounter arguments involving Intelligent Design; and also how the LHC may begin to shed some empirical light on those theories. Man, I wish they'd fire that thing up full-blast, already. Could happen in 2012.

Originally posted by Mindship
I tend to refer to multiple-universe theories (eg, chaotic inflation), when I encounter arguments involving Intelligent Design; and also how the LHC may begin to shed some empirical light on those theories. Man, I wish they'd fire that thing up full-blast, already. Could happen in 2012.

Indeed, fingers crossed.

The old airplane-in-a-tornado analogy popped into my head when I read his post, though. And it's really a shame, because that's really how a lot of people see our existence in terms of scientific possibility. Without an understanding of the flaws in the argument, it's no wonder plenty of people believe in creationism or directed evolution.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You don't know me very well! I could give a rats a#@ about seeming polite. I just don't jump to conclusions like a retard. More people should try it. Expressing hasty judgments is a dunce move, wouldn't you agree? If the topic wasn't important to me then I wouldn't be being as serious as I've been on this thread. The idea was to understand atheists better. I've learned that they have valid reasons for not wanting to hear any "religions" ideas of where they came from and for what reasons. I explained this new appreciation for the perspective of those who call themselves atheist to a cousin over the holiday.

Also, who elected you the atheist president? Some people may have become atheists because they resented the fear tactics of some churches. Eternal torture is explained to young children. Dismissing the idea might be relieving, I was curious as to whether it was a factor.

Especially when the no God theory essentially equals that we're a one in a zillion freak occurrence that has no uniqueness. Our luck seperates us from the creatures that do not enslave other species and reshape the total terrain for their habitat. This existence is not possibly a gift that we need appreciate being given, it is only a rare opportunity to be exploited to the fullest.

Apparently you elected me president of atheists. I made no judgements. I only asked a question.

You are polite. But, you also seem to be saying, like most theists, that people just can't comprehend what you know to be true so basically anything they say is ignorant of the reality to which you subscribe.

If people became atheists because they were affraid of theological scare tactics, then they never really became atheists. If you still have a fear or dread of "God", then you aren't an atheist. They didn't just get lazy one day and stick their head in the sand. Otherwise, they're no different than the majority of theists. The wisest people know they don't know what happens after you die, but they also know the people selling that knowledge as certainty are no smarter or better connected to the afterlife than themselves. This is why it's a cyclical argument. You say you know. Someone says you can't know for sure. You say you do. They ask how. You say it's in the bible. There is no room in your argument for you to be wrong, so you intentionally ignore anything but your own certainty. That is lazy. It's just as lazy and dishonest as any atheist who says he became one because he's scared of "God's" judgement. Asking if people became atheists because they're affraid of judgment is only a way to get people to say it's possible (themselves also not understanding atheism) so you can tell them those people aren't really atheists. You're not stupid. You know what you're doing.

In your last paragraph you demonstrate very nicely your lack of knowledge of anything but the doctrine espoused by those in your religion that propogate ignorance of other species, intentionally or not, for the benefit of keeping people as followers. Many, many species behave in both manners you used as examples.

I'll kinda echo what Skek said. Leaving a religion because you dislike their tactics is not equivalent to atheism. All it shows is that you still don't actually understand atheist thinking, or you're pretending not to.

And while it's redundant to point out at this point, it's also completely true that an actual atheist would never be afraid of judgment. Lapsed theists, sure. But you can't fear something you don't believe in.

This sentence is also particularly disturbing:

Originally posted by The MISTER
I've learned that they have valid reasons for not wanting to hear any "religions" ideas of where they came from and for what reasons.

...the implication being that atheists simply won't listen to theistic arguments, at least if I read the statement correctly (and its context).

MISTER, you're still very confused, or you're not doing a good job of not seeming confused. You'd be better off asking questions instead of making assumptions.

Originally posted by Digi
I'll kinda echo what Skek said. Leaving a religion because you dislike their tactics is not equivalent to atheism. All it shows is that you still don't actually understand atheist thinking, or you're pretending not to.

And while it's redundant to point out at this point, it's also completely true that an actual atheist would never be afraid of judgment. Lapsed theists, sure. But you can't fear something you don't believe in.

This sentence is also particularly disturbing:



...the implication being that atheists simply won't listen to theistic arguments, at least if I read the statement correctly (and its context).

MISTER, you're still very confused, or you're not doing a good job of not seeming confused. You'd be better off asking questions instead of making assumptions. Well I'll admit that I'm confused. We don't understand each others way of thinking but I'm trying to work on my end of that. From what I've seen it is the way of most people to adhere to what they believe, and only pretend to entertain other ideas. The reason talking to you guys is interesting and I have no hidden purpose here is because I'm on a computer. There is no reason for me to get all super defensive, I'd rather learn how people think. At the end of this we will all likely remain adamant about our beliefs and that's fine, but at least I'LL know more about atheists than I did. So what if I'm still confused? I could say the same thing about anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of what I explain to them. According to most of what I've read from the posts most atheists have their minds made up about ALL organized religions and their gods. How is it odd that one would gather that most of them (never all) are done entertaining theistic arguments realistically? I am a realist at the end of the day so I am trying to open myself up to other ideas. Currently I'm of the belief that atheism is very similar to organized religion in that it is made up of a community of people who agree on extreme ideologies. When either is asked about their beliefs they speak with great authority and confidence and also consider those who do not readily embrace their info to be deluded or a lost cause. Arrogance seems to dominate all human belief systems and arrogance is offensive. At least I have learned this through this thread. Now I can continue on knowing why the "know-it-all" is so very much disliked. I should also say that nobody on kmc comes off like a know it all as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Digi
That sounds dangerously close to an argument often used by creationists to attack evolution, saying that we couldn't just be here by "chance." A thorough knowledge of natural selection actually yields numerous credible possibilities for our current existence, none of them owing to a higher deity. Evolution does not even begin to explain the origins of the universe and it is there where humans grasp at straws. Something originating from nothing is what I find hard to believe no matter how hard a fellow finite being tries to present it. It appears fundamentally flawed. Not trying to promote religion with that, just stating what is obvious to me. The Big-bang and evolution seem like explanations of a process to me. Similar to explaining the ingredients of a cake and the chemical change those ingredients go through. That would not begin to explain the origin of the ingredients.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Evolution does not even begin to explain the origins of the universe and it is there where humans grasp at straws. ...

There is a simpler answer: there is no origin. Are you grasping at straws?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Evolution does not even begin to explain the origins of the universe and it is there where humans grasp at straws.

Evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of the universe, it's like blaming your dishwasher for not being a toaster oven.

That being said, we have good explanations about the early history of the universe, and there are hypothesis about the origins which are just as valid if not more than anything a Religion has brought. You may claim that we come into meta-physics there, and I do think you are right, but there's no reason to assume your philosophy on that is better than anyone else's, the problem with a God is that it is an extraordinary claim, that brings so many questions with it, that it is in no way a satisfying explanation.

Regardless, evolution never was and still isn't a threat to a God in general, at the time and even now, through so called young earth creationists and even more cunning Intelligent Design advocates, it is a huge threat to certain literal interpretations of the Bible and specifically the Christian God, with the creation story and the Noah's flood, and the general lack of evidence for any design, but it is not and has never been God vs. Evolution, it has been "outdated, unproven or even disproven magical assumptions on the origins of life" vs. Evolution, and Evolution has pretty much won that one in the Western World, and on account of being as true as anything we have ever known in the history of the world will most likely win out unquestionably in the future.

Which is not meant to attack you, just clarify that Evolution is not an attack on God or an explanation of the origin (if there is one) of it all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a simpler answer: there is no origin. Are you grasping at straws? There is no origin, huh? Cute. As a realist though I must conclude that not only everything that I come into contact with has an origin, everything else does as well. We have no evidence that anything lacks an origin, just evidence that we don't agree on what those origins are. Saying there is no origin is like saying that this is all just a dream. Though it may be the case the reality is that it is more than likely not true. Ignoring reality is important to many people. Are you one of them?

Originally posted by The MISTER
There is no origin, huh? Cute. As a realist though I must conclude that not only everything that I come into contact with has an origin, everything else does as well. We have no evidence that anything lacks an origin, just evidence that we don't agree on what those origins are. Saying there is no origin is like saying that this is all just a dream. Though it may be the case the reality is that it is more than likely not true. Ignoring reality is important to many people. Are you one of them?

So, if everything has an origin, then what is the origin of God? Now, what the bible says is that God has no origin. Therefore your statement that all things have an origin is untrue. Also, if there is one thing (God) without an origin, then there can be a second thing, the universe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of the universe, it's like blaming your dishwasher for not being a toaster oven.

That being said, we have good explanations about the early history of the universe, and there are hypothesis about the origins which are just as valid if not more than anything a Religion has brought. You may claim that we come into meta-physics there, and I do think you are right, but there's no reason to assume your philosophy on that is better than anyone else's, the problem with a God is that it is an extraordinary claim, that brings so many questions with it, that it is in no way a satisfying explanation.

Regardless, evolution never was and still isn't a threat to a God in general, at the time and even now, through so called young earth creationists and even more cunning Intelligent Design advocates, it is a huge threat to certain literal interpretations of the Bible and specifically the Christian God, with the creation story and the Noah's flood, and the general lack of evidence for any design, but it is not and has never been God vs. Evolution, it has been "outdated, unproven or even disproven magical assumptions on the origins of life" vs. Evolution, and Evolution has pretty much won that one in the Western World, and on account of being as true as anything we have ever known in the history of the world will most likely win out unquestionably in the future.

Which is not meant to attack you, just clarify that Evolution is not an attack on God or an explanation of the origin (if there is one) of it all. I agree with what you've stated almost entirely and the only area I have difficulty with is the creation and noah's ark interfering with evolution and world history. The story of the Ark is a story of Noah's faith in God. The flood would explain a drastic climate change that rendered the world inhospitable to the dinosaurs. The detailed descriptions of the leaf eating brontosaurus/behemoth and the ocean ruling mosasaur/leviathan in the Bible lead me to believe that there is likely an error in the dating methods used to read the past. That may seem extreme and possibly illogical, but I see that the Bible's description of the mosasaur is accurate and the plant eating dinosaur as well. Realistically, this strengthens my belief that if I am being deceived then it is by humans that believe themselves to be the authority on all things. The idea that a message can be free from human taint is definitely hard to accept for people who believe that all knowledge comes from humans. Though believing in the Bible requires faith so does believing that humans are the supreme authority. Having no faith in anything is an option that humans can choose also as we can always respond with " I don't know" to even the simplest questions. I really do agree that evolution is not about disproving any faith though. I appreciate this posts message.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if everything has an origin, then what is the origin of God? Now, what the bible says is that God has no origin. Therefore your statement that all things have an origin is untrue. Also, if there is one thing (God) without an origin, then there can be a second thing, the universe. You make a good point there.

It's not like you're wrong I just wonder that if an origin isn't required then whatever didn't require it is supernatural even if it was the universe that was supernatural. Something supernatural happened is what we can conclude about a lack of an origin. Supernatural meaning something that is real yet unexplainable.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You make a good point there.

It's not like you're wrong I just wonder that if an origin isn't required then whatever didn't require it is supernatural even if it was the universe that was supernatural. Something supernatural happened is what we can conclude about a lack of an origin. Supernatural meaning something that is real yet unexplainable.

Why would something supernatural have to happen in order for the universe to have no origin? It seems you are artistically inserting an obstetrical into what would otherwise be a very simple statement: the big bang was a change, and not an origin.

Well, I'm glad you appreciated the post. The problem with Noah's Ark though is that it is impossible. The size of the ark would be impossible, the natural changes would be completely poisonous to most life including humans, there'd be a lot of evidence left behind, yet there is none. Noah's ark either is metaphorical, or on a much, much smaller scale.

The behemoth is hardly a perfect description, rather it is an incredibly vague description that could fit a lot of animals. And evidence shows that humans and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time, so I am not sure how he could have showed Lot 4000 years ago.

You are right, that as we are limited by our senses, which we can not always trust even in this framework, ultimately something will require faith. We can however discuss the size of the leap of faiths and the apparent outcomes from our beliefs. And anyone must admit that the scientific method and logic had an unprecedented and unrivaled success in human advancement.

Additionally very few people believe that humans are the supreme authority of anything, if you meant that that's what atheists or scientists believe in that is a mis-characterization.

Originally posted by Digi
creationism Way too simplistic for my tastes.


directed evolution. This is trickier for me. Since I'm not an atheist, and tend to favor -- not a literal-Biblical, creationist-embracing POV -- but a comprehensive, metaphorical-mystical perspective, over pure materialism, I accept 'chance' as a factor but subsume it in an overarching, multiversal teleology. Put another way: in practical, empirical terms, chance is sufficient. Period. Anything more than that I consider (IMO) worthwhile, at the very least intriguing, speculation.

Pardon the multi-syllabic, multi-hyphenated phraseology. I was trying to make this as clear as possible without seeming like I'm splitting hairs or lapsing into overt paradox.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would something supernatural have to happen in order for the universe to have no origin? It seems you are artistically inserting an obstetrical into what would otherwise be a very simple statement: the big bang was a change, and not an origin. Simply put it is so very out of the norm to not have an origin that the beginning is the only documented occurrence of this happening in nature as we know it. Thus it is not natural or occurring normally in nature. Things happening for no reason is not natural is it? How many things happen for NO reason?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Simply put it is so very out of the norm to not have an origin that the beginning is the only documented occurrence of this happening in nature as we know it. Thus it is not natural or occurring normally in nature. Things happening for no reason is not natural is it? How many things happen for NO reason?

What? No origin does not equate to no reason. Why do you think reason is connected to creation? If reason comes from God, then a creation is not needed for reason to exist.

How many things in nature come for nothing? The answer should be, there are none. Everything in nature comes from somethings else. Therefore, to say there was a creation is not natural, in the way you mean creation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I'm glad you appreciated the post. The problem with Noah's Ark though is that it is impossible. The size of the ark would be impossible, the natural changes would be completely poisonous to most life including humans, there'd be a lot of evidence left behind, yet there is none. Noah's ark either is metaphorical, or on a much, much smaller scale.

The behemoth is hardly a perfect description, rather it is an incredibly vague description that could fit a lot of animals. And evidence shows that humans and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time, so I am not sure how he could have showed Lot 4000 years ago.

You are right, that as we are limited by our senses, which we can not always trust even in this framework, ultimately something will require faith. We can however discuss the size of the leap of faiths and the apparent outcomes from our beliefs. And anyone must admit that the scientific method and logic had an unprecedented and unrivaled success in human advancement.

Additionally very few people believe that humans are the supreme authority of anything, if you meant that that's what atheists or scientists believe in that is a mis-characterization.

I agree that the Ark is farfetched though I believe in miracles and believe there is even evidence that supports their existence today. I have to believe that when doctors say that there is NO reason an individual is alive and call it a miracle, that they know what they're talking about.

The description of the leviathan is more relevant to me as surprisingly accurate when applied to the mosasaur, a dinosaur that ruled the seas according to scientists. This creatures bones would not be readily available at the time that the book of job was written and despite that fact the description is dead-on. This was a creature that men would not be able to challenge with harpoons and spears. It was not supposed to exist while humans inhabited the earth according to dating methods yet it is described as a living creature by the Bible. The creature called the leviathan by the Bible is a very accurate mosasaur. I am not the type of person who calls everything coincidence and the description of these two animals seems to be purposeful and accurate descriptions of creatures that should not have been described as alive by our ancestors. Mosasaur bones are difficult to gather even with todays knowledge and machinery. They are believed to have been the ultimate predators on earth and that's how the leviathan of the Bible was described. I find that intriguing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


How many things in nature come for nothing? The answer should be, there are none. Everything in nature comes from somethings else. Therefore, to say there was a creation is not natural, in the way you mean creation.

This is what I believe, yes.

Originally posted by The MISTER
This is what I believe, yes.

Then why do you believe that the universe came from nothing?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why do you believe that the universe came from nothing? I think that what you describe as nothing is equal to what I describe as supernatural. Just two different perspectives is all.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I think that what you describe as nothing is equal to what I describe as supernatural. Just two different perspectives is all.

But there is a key difference. If it simply supernatural then there's no point in investigating it because we'll never understand it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But there is a key difference. If it simply supernatural then there's no point in investigating it because we'll never understand it. Perhaps we can better understand things that are beyond our ability to fully understand.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I think that what you describe as nothing is equal to what I describe as supernatural. Just two different perspectives is all.

All you are doing is filling in the gap with the word supernatural.

Did God make the universe out of nothing?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Tell me where I can read up on these particles.

You mean besides wikipedia?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All you are doing is filling in the gap with the word supernatural.

Did God make the universe out of nothing? According to the Bible all existence has a supernatural origin in that God willed the universe into existence. I am going to look into the virtual particles that mindship was explaining however as it is not my wish to dismiss available knowledge.

For nothing to exist and then produce somethings seems unbelievable so far but I may discover that it IS common. Unless I'm wrong that would create a need for the adjustment of the scientific law that energy cannot be created or destroyed as that would no longer be the constant case.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You mean besides wikipedia? Just checked it out there and it leads me to ask this question? Are virtual particles simply invisible particles that make up "forces"?

I love Wikipedia!!

Originally posted by The MISTER
Just checked it out there and it leads me to ask this question? Are virtual particles simply invisible particles that make up "forces"?

I love Wikipedia!!

That's one thing they do. Electrons are kept in "orbit" around the protons in a nucleus thanks to photon exchange. Quantum gravity (still awaiting its big breakthrough) proposes that masses attract each other due to graviton exchange.

What's more important to an ex-nihilo creation of the universe is the presence of virtual particles in a vacuum, which I don't get at all.

Originally posted by The MISTER
According to the Bible all existence has a supernatural origin in that God willed the universe into existence. I am going to look into the virtual particles that mindship was explaining however as it is not my wish to dismiss available knowledge.

For nothing to exist and then produce somethings seems unbelievable so far but I may discover that it IS common. Unless I'm wrong that would create a need for the adjustment of the scientific law that energy cannot be created or destroyed as that would no longer be the constant case.

I'm glad you think the universe is made from nothing.

What is nothing?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm glad you think the universe is made from nothing.

What is nothing? Don't know. Does it even exist at all?

Bible says that it's separation from God. I believe that though I can't prove it at all.

Quantum mechanics describes that "nothing" possesses its own energy, called zero point energy, that is capable of undergoing fluctuations. That is to say, there really is no such thing as "nothing" in physics; even a seemingly empty vacuum actually is constantly generating and degenerating virtual particles. To me, it isn't unthinkable that fluctuations of this energy could have caused spontaneous creation; but, I am unsure of what the research in this field indicates.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Don't know. Does it even exist at all?

Bible says that it's separation from God. I believe that though I can't prove it at all.

What I find interesting is that a lot of Christians accuse science of claiming that the universe was created form nothing, but it's really the other way around. Christians are really the one claiming that the universe came from nothing, while science says that nothingness does not exist.

Originally posted by The MISTER
For nothing to exist and then produce somethings seems unbelievable so far but I may discover that it IS common. Unless I'm wrong that would create a need for the adjustment of the scientific law that energy cannot be created or destroyed as that would no longer be the constant case. For superbrief (Planck?) intervals of time, that law, technically, is violated. But because particles are popping in and out of being so quickly, it balances out faster than the universe can 'notice'.

QM is wicked stuff.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Quantum mechanics describes that "nothing" possesses its own energy, called zero point energy, that is capable of undergoing fluctuations. That is to say, there really is no such thing as "nothing" in physics; even a seemingly empty vacuum actually is constantly generating and degenerating virtual particles. To me, it isn't unthinkable that fluctuations of this energy could have caused spontaneous creation; but, I am unsure of what the research in this field indicates. This makes sense to me.

Most "laws" of physics have noted exceptions to them on either very small or very large levels. Its the general principles (theories) that do a better job of really describing what happens. I generally tend to associate the term law in science with old discoveries, before there was standardized ways of naming things; its pretty pretentious now to describe your discovery as a "law" when so many of them are eventually shown to be false.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What I find interesting is that a lot of Christians accuse science of claiming that the universe was created form nothing, but it's really the other way around. Christians are really the one claiming that the universe came from nothing, while science says that nothingness does not exist. A lot of christians dismiss far too much science but you are filling in the supernatural with the word nothing. Christians claim that God made the universe, not that nothing made the universe. Christians believe that the universe had an origin and you have stated that the universe is the one thing that has no origin, thus we disagree. Even the virtual particles origins are attempted to be explained however mysterious they are. The christians that are accusing science of suggesting that an origin conclusively does not exist are right to be skeptical. As christians we are aware that though it is not important to all, discrediting the Bible is important to some. On the opposite end you have christians that attempt to discredit science for their own agenda.

Originally posted by The MISTER
A lot of christians dismiss far too much science but you are filling in the supernatural with the word nothing. Christians claim that God made the universe, not that nothing made the universe. Christians believe that the universe had an origin and you have stated that the universe is the one thing that has no origin, thus we disagree. Even the virtual particles origins are attempted to be explained however mysterious they are. The christians that are accusing science of suggesting that an origin conclusively does not exist are right to be skeptical. As christians we are aware that though it is not important to all, discrediting the Bible is important to some. On the opposite end you have christians that attempt to discredit science for their own agenda.

No, I am not replacing the word supernatural with the word nothing. I am saying that there is no creation, or origin of the universe. The big bang was just a change in the multiverse.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I could say the same thing about anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of what I explain to them.

See, you can't say in one sentence that you're confused and say that is why you're asking questions, but then speak about getting people to agree 100%. You're not asking questions, you're trying to trap people who believe in nothing to be afraid of to admit they're afraid of the same things that scare you about your own religion. By saying that there need be a consensus of opinion and beliefs at the end of these topics you raise for debate is to ignore totally what it means to be an atheist. To agree with you 100%, the other guy has to buy into the absolutes you're selling as certainty. Atheism doesn't deal in absolute certainty, it deals in knowing no one can know for sure everything you're saying you know for certain. Atheists don't need 100% agreement with their perspective, but yours only seems to work for you if you can get everyone around you to buy into it as well. Saying that people who have no belief in some version of your god are only participating in this discussion because they're not sure is another way of illustrating that you honestly can't grasp the concept, at all.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I agree with what you've stated almost entirely and the only area I have difficulty with is the creation and noah's ark interfering with evolution and world history. The story of the Ark is a story of Noah's faith in God. The flood would explain a drastic climate change that rendered the world inhospitable to the dinosaurs. The detailed descriptions of the leaf eating brontosaurus/behemoth and the ocean ruling mosasaur/leviathan in the Bible lead me to believe that there is likely an error in the dating methods used to read the past. That may seem extreme and possibly illogical, but I see that the Bible's description of the mosasaur is accurate and the plant eating dinosaur as well. Realistically, this strengthens my belief that if I am being deceived then it is by humans that believe themselves to be the authority on all things. The idea that a message can be free from human taint is definitely hard to accept for people who believe that all knowledge comes from humans. Though believing in the Bible requires faith so does believing that humans are the supreme authority. Having no faith in anything is an option that humans can choose also as we can always respond with " I don't know" to even the simplest questions. I really do agree that evolution is not about disproving any faith though. I appreciate this posts message.

Do you know what a parable is?


Again, you're saying that people have a choice of no option because you are saying your god gave them the option to have free will. It's just another trap you think will allow you to tell others that don't believe exactly as you do, that they really do.

Originally posted by skekUng
See, you can't say in one sentence that you're confused and say that is why you're asking questions, but then speak about getting people to agree 100%. You're not asking questions, you're trying to trap people who believe in nothing to be afraid of to admit they're afraid of the same things that scare you about your own religion. By saying that there need be a consensus of opinion and beliefs at the end of these topics you raise for debate is to ignore totally what it means to be an atheist. To agree with you 100%, the other guy has to buy into the absolutes you're selling as certainty. Atheism doesn't deal in absolute certainty, it deals in knowing no one can know for sure everything you're saying you know for certain. Atheists don't need 100% agreement with their perspective, but yours only seems to work for you if you can get everyone around you to buy into it as well. Saying that people who have no belief in some version of your god are only participating in this discussion because they're not sure is another way of illustrating that you honestly can't grasp the concept, at all. You do understand the word "could" right? Anyone who expects people to agree with them 100% on everything is stupid. I was saying that I COULD act stupid basically. I could care less to trap anyone...I won't get a check for it will I? Quit trying to put something on me that doesn't fit, and maybe you were right about me being polite cause I'd rather find out more than get emotional on the computer.
I love the fact that you're emoting all over this subject though. It confirms to me that an atheist's beliefs are similar to religious persons in that their emotions become involved. I guess being over-zealous over beliefs can apply to anyone.

Originally posted by skekUng
Do you know what a parable is?


Again, you're saying that people have a choice of no option because you are saying your god gave them the option to have free will. It's just another trap you think will allow you to tell others that don't believe exactly as you do, that they really do.

I don't believe it's a parable. (obviously)

Again, you're emoting and trying to tell me what I'm trying to do.

I'm not an idiot who thinks MY way is the truth and the light. I'm not perfect. Traps?

You're a riot!

Originally posted by The MISTER
I love the fact that you're emoting all over this subject though. It confirms to me that an atheist's beliefs are similar to religious persons in that their emotions become involved. I guess being over-zealous over beliefs can apply to anyone.

I'm not sure what's so interesting about that. People kill each other over sports. Emotions are a result of being human, feeling them says nothing at all about your beliefs (unless you're claiming to be a Vulcan, I guess).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure what's so interesting about that. People kill each other over sports. Emotions are a result of being human, feeling them says nothing at all about your beliefs (unless you're claiming to be a Vulcan, I guess). It's interesting because those emotions led to me being accused of something that I'm not doing which is acting as if I'm on a secret mission to save the lost atheists....I've already concluded that there may be many that claim to be atheists that would be destined for the heaven I believe in with no help from me. I don't consider myself superior to atheists just because I don't agree with them fully and I stated that it was ignorant for anyone to act that way.

As plain as I made that, an emotional post accuses me of having an agenda, again.

It's cool because now I have a first hand account of what atheists must have to go through. And it's quite interesting.

Originally posted by The MISTER
It's interesting because those emotions led to me being accused of something that I'm not doing which is acting as if I'm on a secret mission to save the lost atheists....I've already concluded that there may be many that claim to be atheists that would be destined for the heaven I believe in with no help from me. I don't consider myself superior to atheists just because I don't agree with them fully and I stated that it was ignorant for anyone to act that way.

As plain as I made that, an emotional post accuses me of having an agenda, again.

It's cool because now I have a first hand account of what atheists must have to go through. And it's quite interesting.

So, someone is getting upset at you for something you didn't do? How ironic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, someone is getting upset at you for something you didn't do? How ironic. You're funny!

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're funny!

It is too bad you didn't get it.

as far as God's judgement, you'd have to believe in God beforehand before believeing in his judgement. athists do not believe God exists therefore the fear of his judgement does not exist because there's nothing to be afraid of.

as far as human judgement, sure. athiests are normal people and are afraid of being discriminated against because of their (non) beliefs. in most cases in society it's not a good idea to say you're an atheist especially if you want to be socially mobile at work and/or in your personal life.

in most cases you can't be president of countries of companies, you may be looked at as a devil worshipper, which is asinine because athists do not believe in the devil either. you'll be looked at as a trouble maker or a bad influence and the list goes on.

it's not easy being an athiest amounst the vast hypnotised.

it's like walking amoung zombies and you're the only one alive. but what's keeping you alive is doing what they're doing and pretend in order not to be eaten alive. it's stressful (and even scary).

Originally posted by The MISTER
You do understand the word "could" right? Anyone who expects people to agree with them 100% on everything is stupid. I was saying that I COULD act stupid basically. I could care less to trap anyone...I won't get a check for it will I? Quit trying to put something on me that doesn't fit, and maybe you were right about me being polite cause I'd rather find out more than get emotional on the computer.
I love the fact that you're emoting all over this subject though. It confirms to me that an atheist's beliefs are similar to religious persons in that their emotions become involved. I guess being over-zealous over beliefs can apply to anyone.
Originally posted by The MISTER

I don't believe it's a parable. (obviously)
Again, you're emoting and trying to tell me what I'm trying to do.
I'm not an idiot who thinks MY way is the truth and the light. I'm not perfect. Traps?
You're a riot!

You don't expect people to agree with you 100% of the time. Sadly, you realize this so well that you come onto internet forums and attempt to point out to atheists how they aren't really athiests. YES, you will get a check for it. At least you believe you will, in this life or the next. You keep saying I'm getting emotional, like I'm a hysterical woman incapable of rational thinking. It's a nice tactic people like yourself tend to use when they're confronted with a more level-headed way of approaching your perspective. It's my lack of emotion that really bothers folks like yourself. In fact, the only emotion I see in anything either of us have said to one another is the dozens of emoticons you seem to use when you feel cornered. (Another tactic meant to illicit an emotional reaction.) Look, I've gotten emotional with people like yourself in the past. From arguing with people like you on forums to face to face confrontations in parking lots to watching people like Kirk Cameron actually tell the television audience he would provide them with a way to get around atheists intellect and convince them of the truth of Christ, you're old hat. Seeing through people like you is the easiest thing in the world.

Originally posted by skekUng
You don't expect people to agree with you 100% of the time. Sadly, you realize this so well that you come onto internet forums and attempt to point out to atheists how they aren't really athiests. YES, you will get a check for it. At least you believe you will, in this life or the next. You keep saying I'm getting emotional, like I'm a hysterical woman incapable of rational thinking. It's a nice tactic people like yourself tend to use when they're confronted with a more level-headed way of approaching your perspective. It's my lack of emotion that really bothers folks like yourself. In fact, the only emotion I see in anything either of us have said to one another is the dozens of emoticons you seem to use when you feel cornered. (Another tactic meant to illicit an emotional reaction.) Look, I've gotten emotional with people like yourself in the past. From arguing with people like you on forums to face to face confrontations in parking lots to watching people like Kirk Cameron actually tell the television audience he would provide them with a way to get around atheists intellect and convince them of the truth of Christ, you're old hat. Seeing through people like you is the easiest thing in the world.

He hasn't come back sense I pissed him off.

shakey, seriously, you make the best typos

i have no problem at accepting the possibility of some higher plane of existence, i have a problem with ppl claiming they know what it is and who runs it and how he behaves, wants, thinks... etc ect.. and everyone else is wrong.

having said that i dont fear death nor judgment if it exist.. i dont care enough to fear the end of my existence nor does that fear of judgment motivate me to be a good or bad person.


now i have studied theology and religion for college credit and "if" the Judeo/christian Bible is true. i have to point out that their is no Hell in the judeo version and what is commonly referred as hell is sheol mankinds common grave.

now for christians when christ came he used the sheol/hades terms used by the modern jews/greeks to understand and express his ideals. Jesus also went down down to sheol to raise everyone into eternal life and lock away sheol/hades.

their is no torment. but, let's say we believe the book of revelations and that we will all stand before god and be judged accordingly and our life and name may or may not be in the book of life.

"if you believe in god and accepted jesus which i find that questionable you will live. if not and your name is not in the book you will be thrown into the flame not to be tormented but to cease to exist...

i always find it funny and sad how inaccurate ppl can mistranslates not just their own religion but context..

Originally posted by King Castle
i have no problem at accepting the possibility of some higher plane of existence, i have a problem with ppl claiming they know what it is and who runs it and how he behaves, wants, thinks... etc ect.. and everyone else is wrong.

having said that i dont fear death nor judgment if it exist.. i dont care enough to fear the end of my existence nor does that fear of judgment motivate me to be a good or bad person.


now i have studied theology and religion for college credit and "if" the Judeo/christian Bible is true. i have to point out that their is no Hell in the judeo version and what is commonly referred as hell is sheol mankinds common grave.

now for christians when christ came he used the sheol/hades terms used by the modern jews/greeks to understand and express his ideals. Jesus also went down down to sheol to raise everyone into eternal life and lock away sheol/hades.

their is no torment. but, let's say we believe the book of revelations and that we will all stand before god and be judged accordingly and our life and name may or may not be in the book of life.

"if you believe in god and accepted jesus which i find that questionable you will live. if not and your name is not in the book you will be thrown into the flame not to be tormented but to cease to exist...

i always find it funny and sad how inaccurate ppl can mistranslates not just their own religion but context..

Well, are you not afraid that Santa Clause will put you on his naughty list?

why would anyone fear Tim Allen?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, are you not afraid that Santa Clause will put you on his naughty list? what did you find funny about my post, inaccurate or in agreement ?

now for Santa i was 4 or 5 when i saw my uncle putting toys in our stockings and under the tree... i knew then there was no santa clause. so, no. i am not afraid.

Originally posted by King Castle
what did you find funny about my post, inaccurate or in agreement ?

now for Santa i was 4 or 5 when i saw my uncle booting toys in our stockings and under the tree... i knew then there was no santa clause. so, no. i am not afraid.

I was not criticizing you; I was agreeing with you. Plus it's the holiday season, so a Santa Clause references was appropriate.

we dont celebrate holidays in my family once at a certain age..... no lights, no toys... but the cold hard honest truth about it.

Originally posted by King Castle
we dont celebrate holidays in my family once at a certain age..... no lights, no toys... but the cold hard honest truth about it.

Sorry about that. My family, when I was young, thought Christmas was of Satan, so we didn't celebrate it ether. Now that I'm a Buddhist, and I celebrate any holiday I want too.

Originally posted by King Castle
we dont celebrate holidays in my family once at a certain age..... no lights, no toys... but the cold hard honest truth about it.

What does that even mean? One Christmas you just wake the kids up in the middle of the night with all the lights off and tell them that the world is harsh and unforgiving?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What does that even mean? One Christmas you just wake the kids up in the middle of the night with all the lights off and tell them that the world is harsh and unforgiving? well, when i found my uncle stuffing our stockings and gifts in the tree,... my mom told me the truth. i was like 4 or 5.

we told my brother when he was about 8 or 10.

we dont do Christmas or thanksgiving and commercial holidays that has nothing to do with the spirit of its intend.

the only gifts we get and holiday meals was so we didnt feel left out from the other kids in school..

we get our toys and clothes on holidays b/c other kids had them not b/c we earned them or believed in santa claus and the holiday spirit.

i was about 12 when i stop caring about showing off my christmas gifts in school and even stop wanting them

Originally posted by King Castle
well, when i found my uncle stuffing our stockings and gifts in the tree,... my mom told me the truth. i was like 4 or 5.

we told my brother when he was about 8 or 10.

That's not really a cold truth unless it was in the form of "we're sick of caring about you now so no more presents".

Originally posted by King Castle
we dont do Christmas or thanksgiving and commercial holidays that has nothing to do with the spirit of its intend.

the only gifts we get and holiday meals was so we didnt feel left out from the other kids in school..

Then I think you're missing what's so great about the holidays. Sure, toys are nice for the kids, but a lot of families are spread out all over the country and Thanksgiving and Christmas are great times to get everyone together.

Also the music, I love Christmas music.

Originally posted by King Castle
we get our toys and clothes on holidays b/c other kids had them not b/c we earned them or believed in santa claus and the holiday spirit.

If you had to "earn" Christmas presents I'd say you're parents didn't really get the holiday.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He hasn't come back sense I pissed him off.

Thanks for ruining it for the rest of us. Now what will we do all day?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, are you not afraid that Santa Clause will put you on his naughty list?

When I was four I tried to have an imaginary friend, like some of the other kids. The problem was that I couldn't convince myself I was ****ing nuts!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also the music, I love Christmas music.



Originally posted by skekUng
Thanks for ruining it for the rest of us. Now what will we do all day?

we wait for Whirly

sock troll?

Cold hard truth: there is no santa claus, celebrating the coming of Columbus is not something to celebrate any more then you celebrate the holocaust and Hitler's Birth.

Santa has a naughty list every child knows that and parents warn their kids to behave or else... lil kids believe that sh#$ and when you have an uncontrollable brat you dont reward them.

i dont miss the point of the holiday i understand its a time for family which is cool... we dont buy presents for each other or put up lights for it and give our money to corporations.

ppl shouldnt need to pick a specific date to be nice and caring...

just like other religions dont need to celebrate dates where one side of a racial group profited at the expense of another.