To my beautiful Atheists

[Crunchy Cat]

God virus = fantasy

I see. My original statement referenced a 'belief' virus; however, like any claim, I would be more than happy to provide evidence for it. Before I go drudging up supportive evidence, I want to make sure you understand what I am talking about by a belief virus?

Please share your interpretation.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No he took them because he is stupid.... I mean come on ... he wanted phsychic powers so he took LSD. How did he get that from Christianity?

I don't have the details you're looking for and I bet Godless does. Why not ask him?

People should take responsibity for their own actions and stop blaming other external factors.

Christianity removes responsibility and suspends accountability until after death. Practice Christianity and you are doing 'God's' will (removal of responsibility right there) and when you die you will go to heaven (presence of after-death accountability there). Practice anything else and you are doing 'Satan's' will (removal of responsibility again) and when you die you will go to hell (presence of after-death accountability again).

So, you're either doing the will of 'God' or 'Satan' (not your own). In this model, all 'free will' provides you with is a choice of which lack-of-responsibility to embrace.

 

[Light Travelling]

That's a faulty claim there bub. My statement that you referenced
.

You are being evasive;

You spoke of 'a truth' in you opening post, not only a truth but a truth that comes at a cost and required commitment etc. Now you say you werent claiming a particular truth? But when you typed you original post, you must have had an idea of what this truth was - please explain.... maybe its a truth thats no truth (how buddhist of you)

If you have no truth to proclaim, why type you werre a minority "coming to truth"

nor claim a method of 'conversion'.

Oh come on now - your opeing post was asking people to suggest ways in which theists could be converted to atheism.!!!! "how could a clone be influenced" or words to that effect. Your simply not being honest...

 

[Light Travelling]

I don't have the details you're looking for and I bet Godless does. Why not ask him?.

It was an open question - anyone may reply..

Christianity removes responsibility and suspends accountability until after death. Practice Christianity and you are doing 'God's' will (removal of responsibility right there) and when you die you will go to heaven (presence of after-death accountability there). Practice anything else and you are doing 'Satan's' will (removal of responsibility again) and when you die you will go to hell (presence of after-death accountability again).

So, you're either doing the will of 'God' or 'Satan' (not your own). In this model, all 'free will' provides you with is a choice of which lack-of-responsibility to embrace.

Exactly, you are quite right. This is what I dont like about orthodox christianity as well. Which is why I adhere more the philosophy of eastern religion.

Reincarnation (yea I know I cant prove it), but reincarnation actually lays more responsibility on the individual than materialism does, you live with cosequences life after life after life.


well what do you know ... we agree on something

 

[sniffy]

With respect crunch you are arguing mostly about Christianity. There are other religions that don't profer hell fire and damnation.
Atheism is a belief that there is no being 'higher' than a human (don't even start me on humans).

The crux of the matter is: has anyone ever died and come back to tell us what's next (if anything)? We cannot prove or disprove god, life after death, reincarnation, etc, etc. one way or the other. We could say that Christianity's take on diety is hokem, that buddhism is clap trap and Islam is barking up the wrong tree but doing that does not disprove the existance of a diety. Nor can the religions of the world prove there is one.

Stalemate, circular arguments....

Now there is a stong argument, backed by research into the genetic makeup of living things, which indicates that everything is connected. Perhaps we should spend a little time pondering the implications of that before we allow our minds to slam shut.

 

[Sarkus]

Atheism is a belief that there is no being 'higher' than a human (don't even start me on humans).

No - atheism is the lack of belief in a God.

It is precisely because no one can prove there IS a God that the majority of atheists, from what I understand, choose not to believe there is one.

It is only what are often termed "Strong" atheists who go so far as to believe that there is no God.

The basic point is - can you prove there is a God? If not - why believe there is one? Why not be content to say: "Well, there might be and there might not be - we just don't know." That is what the majority of atheists conclude (and it is NOT the same as Agnosticism!)
Why have this belief that God exists?

There again, if you CAN prove there is a God - please do so!

 

[geeser]

I dont think anyone wants the religious to prove their dieties, I think all they wish for is you keep it to yourself an allow children, countries, governments, and science, to progress without it.

 

[sniffy]

I don't want to I merely think the argument about it is spurious

I for one don't believe there is such a thing as strong atheist -
I don't believe in the existance of a diety = atheist
I really don't believe in the existance of a diety = strong atheist (somewhat tautologous)
I either don't believe in the existence of a diety or don't care = agnostic

There are many things that can't be proven at this moment in time so what?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You are being evasive;

What your experiencing as evasiveness is me not taking ownership of an interpretation that wasn't intended.

You spoke of 'a truth' in you opening post, not only a truth but a truth that comes at a cost and required commitment etc. Now you say you werent claiming a particular truth? But when you typed you original post, you must have had an idea of what this truth was - please explain.... maybe its a truth thats no truth (how buddhist of you)

If you have no truth to proclaim, why type you werre a minority "coming to truth"

It's just truth. Nothing specific, but if you want an example of how embracing truth makes you a minority, then just look at Gallileo. The point is that humans tend to value easyness/intuitiveness over truth.

Oh come on now - your opeing post was asking people to suggest ways in which theists could be converted to atheism.!!!! "how could a clone be influenced" or words to that effect. Your simply not being honest...

I was asking about the effectivness of an atheists influence on anyone whom tipped the scales from 'belief' to evidence based thinking (if it applied). The clone question was to reflect on what might have accelerated the process.

It's just knowledge gathering.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Exactly, you are quite right. This is what I dont like about orthodox christianity as well. Which is why I adhere more the philosophy of eastern religion.

Reincarnation (yea I know I cant prove it), but reincarnation actually lays more responsibility on the individual than materialism does, you live with cosequences life after life after life.

well what do you know ... we agree on something

Agreement creeps up in the most unlikely of places . IMO, the idea of reincarnation adds more responsibility and suspends accountability for the next birth.

 

[Meathead]

I always considered myself to be an Atheist. I suppose it was because I was not brought up with a strong religious influence. I had little familiarity with a religious text until recently when I decided to do a Textual Intervention on the story of Noah's Ark. I'll admitt I initially had chosen the text to attack faith, but as I developed my understanding of the story and other religious 'tales' I focused primarily on the text rather than approach it with my own interprative communities and my self belief that I was an Aetheist- which i simply argued I was because there was no evidence. Focusing on Marxist Theory, Ecocriticism, Feminist Theory, Intertextuality, Queer Theory and Textual Conventions I reconstructed the story which I set in mental institution. It seemed a little "too fairy tale" originally. Maybe a silly way to make the decision, but it was a different way to view religion. It'll take a lot to convince me there's a need for religion or faith.

 

[sniffy]

If there isn't a need for religion why do people gravitate towards it in such inexplicable numbers?

 

[Meathead]

They gravitate towards ideals and succumb to the need to understand. Religion is the means for many to explain beginning and meaning. Those who don't follow a religion often seek other explanantions, wouldn't you agree? I don't want to bring the argument of human nature or the behaviour of the human mind into this, but in my own opinion religion is just that historical theory of creation. I do however see your point.

 

[sniffy]

Sometimes i think that people forget the two major things that religions impart; comfort and hope. That's why i am amused by the prove there is/prove there isn't modes of thought. Religons privde a whole lot of comfort and a whole lot of hope in situations where there's not a lot of either. We can argue about whether this is right or wrong or clever or dumb but I do think it goes some way to explaining the 'need' for religion.

 

[sniffy]

I mean whatever gets you through the day (or night) right?

 

[Confutatis]

Religons provide a whole lot of comfort and a whole lot of hope in situations where there's not a lot of either. We can argue about whether this is right or wrong or clever or dumb but I do think it goes some way to explaining the 'need' for religion.

If religion is about comfort and hope, then you have the problem of explaining what is so comforting about the prospect of spending an eternity in hell.

If you ask religious people, they will say religion is about truth, not hope. Hope, for Christians, follows from the truth. And some religions are quite pessimistic.

 

[sniffy]

I didn't say religion is about comfort and hope I said it goes some way to explaining the 'need' for it. As a matter of fact I've come across very few pessimistic Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists et al because they are for sure not going to hell/damnation, be reincarnated as President Bush.
It is the non believers who are in for it.....

 

[staples disconnected]

I did not say there was an atheist community, I was merely replying to the opening post by Crunchy that said there was. If you dont like 'atheist community' reply to him not me

cheers

Fair enough.

Actually they share an un-belief..


didn't you know/

Appreciate the stab at being clever, but that is still a belief.

 

[geeser]

If religion is about comfort and hope, then you have the problem of explaining what is so comforting about the prospect of spending an eternity in hell.

why not is'nt it something to look forward to.



"If there is a Hell, I shall never fear for my comfort. The musings of Epicurus will entertain my mind and Voltaire will tickle my wit. While Paine harries the Devil, Franklin will write us a constitution. Cicero, Madison and Frederick the Great can in turn conspire a government that Marx will quickly deride.

Goethe and Poe will tell delightfully chilling tales by the eternal lake-of-fire-side. Mrs. Cady Stanton and Mrs. B. Anthony will preserve our equality and Darwin will write our history. Messieurs Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell will entertain our ears in the theatre built by Carnegie and designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, and they'll speak through the sound system invented by Thomas Edison.

Twain will make us laugh with his satire of old split-foot and criticism of the almighty, and Clarence Darrow will win his right to do so. Nietzsche will philosophize and Freud will analyze. Wells and Roddenberry will give us fantasy, Frost will give us poetry, Shaw will write us a play and Hepburn will be the queen of the stage.

Virginia Wolff will biographize our very own Margaret Sanger, a choice we'll all applaud. Rubinstein will play us a tune and Berlin will pen the words. Charlie Chaplin will adapt for film a comedic tale of H.P. Lovecraft and Earnest Hemmingway that will star W.C. Fields. Howard Hughes will fund the disastrous project.

Pearle Buck and Ayn Rand will make us think and give Skinner thoughts to study. Snoopy will once again have daily installment in our paper, with Schultz returning to the drafting table. All in all I will be quite entertained.

My social calendar will be full to busting, and I'll have many calls to make. The Huxleys (Aldus, Thomas, and Sir Julian Sorell) will be worth a talk on biology and authorship. Perhaps I myself can compose the great novel of the underworld with the help of Lawrence, Orwell, Joyce and Asimov.

I am in good company in my disbelief.

Nevyn O'Kane"

incidently I have no belief in hell, heaven, or any other imaginary place this is just humour.

 

[geeser]

Appreciate the stab at being clever, but that is still a belief.

for the uneducated of us, can you explain the difference between belief and unbelief/disbelief.
if you dont mind.