Atheist!

[sadangel]

WOW. We couldn't read these the first time they were posted....maybe we can now??

Dude or dudette...whatever...get a life. Somewhere. Adjust your meds, stop the drugs......do something....this is pointless what you are doing.

 

[wmrs2]

No. Wherever you're coming from, doubt is the beginning of wisdom. That's why that rabbi was so happy when his student told him he's decided he was an atheist, because now at last he was ready to start figuring things out for himself.

When I was reading your post, I was playing a game, substituting the word "government" for "religion". It works pretty well. Most people don't want to mess around with figuring out how their government works or whether all the laws and taxes are just and all that. They just want to be comfortable and have the trash picked up and the streets safe. They listen to what their leaders say and don't question it and feel like good citizens.

In the same way, most people don't want to have to figure out all this religion business. They just want someone to tell them what they have to do to feel like good, upstanding, right-with-God people, and they do it.

In any case, religion to me is not so much what you believe, but the process of trying to figure things out.

You can not receive something from nothing. How do you justify your statement that doubt is the beginning of wisdom. I believe doubt is impossible to be followed by wisdom.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Wow, this went bizarre fast. Did wmrs2 hit the "display posts in reverse chrolonogy" button and haven't realized it yet, or is this a case of a blown fuse?

It's a blown fuse.

I will be there to give you somebody to bounce your ideas around on...

Oh shit, say it ain't so!

 

[wmrs2]

Wow, Amicus, I take back my earlier comment about stone throwing. You've gotten mean. I don't think I like reading your contributions because of it. When people are feeling defensive they don't listen to (or read carefully) the point the insulting one is making. Let's try to keep this a debate and not an arguement, folks. It's much more enjoyable to 'discuss' that way.

Well, your advice is good but I do not see you dishing it out to the trolls. It is a matter of opinion as to who begins the insulting and the departure from reasoning although it is obvious to me who it is. Thanks for trying to be objective anyway.

 

[wmrs2]

sorry, Joe, dr mab, etc., if this appears a threadjack. obviously the bugbears of Amicus are a neverending source of amusement.

BUT, in a larger sense, i have shown that some 'apostles of reason', when scratched, get pretty emotional. it's a logical inference that, in power, some of us who work with both reason and doubt, might be forcibly suppressed by said 'apostles'-- a bit like becoming the enemy of Robespierre!

Speaking of threadjacking, have you counted how many post have been on topic on this thread? I counting them as I read and really have found none. The thread is really about why we Americans don't like atheist, not that atheist are bad but they don't think like the rest of us. Americans believe in universal truth and the right to live. If you believed that we were thoughts in God's mind then you would know that it was natural to support the right to live.

 

[sadangel]

Sings: I see the train a comin' it's rollin' down the track.....

 

[wmrs2]

Interesting... in general, hm, perhaps. And then come all the "exceptions". For instance, until very recently, rape in marriage wasn't considered rape and still isn't in a lot of "societies" around the globe. Rape and murder is still condoned and even expected, if you wear a uniform and fight "for a greater good".

A short story from my life to give a little context: In Germany military service is still compulsory, although you do have the choice to do social (civil) service instead, if your conscience doesn't allow you to kill.

At the time that became an issue for me, we still had two Germanies and that choice was being "tested" in front of some sort of tribunal, where your "conscience" was being tested by hypothetical scenarios. One famous example was:

You are at a train station, terrorists are holding hundreds of people hostage, they start killing the hostages, there is a struggle and a submachine gun is falling right in front of your feet. What do you do? This was of course an attempt to tell you that you would pick it up and kill to protect the innocent - the morale of the story being to show you that serving in the military is nothing else.

Knowing about these stories, I decided to serve, because I was pretty sure that I would pick up the weapon. However, following a clear line of reasoning, in a crunch I would have had to shoot at family members, who just happened to live across the border, who, in turn, would do nothing else but their duty "for a greater good". As I learned later, that was a hypothetical scenario too, as I happened to live in a stretch of land that was supposed to become a nuclear wasteland in order to stop a conventional advance of the "red forces" according to NATO strategy. So, it would seem, "protecting the innocent" is quite a relative term, protecting some (or an idea/system?) by sacrificing others obviously an interesting twist in the "rationale" of power.

After WWII, there was the famous speech of a German politician who said "that if any German would pick up a weapon again, his arm should fall off", after what we had done, a wonderful clear moral statement - funnily enough, the same politician opted to advance the reinstatement of armed German forces, unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, we have no one-armed soldiers in service.

Looks like moral and conscience becomes a matter of circumstance, and more often, political agendas. Nowadays we have people in power, whom God tells to advance "democracy" or "a God's state" in the middle east, in order to "protect the innocent" - maybe someone should prompt these people to ask for a clear "how?" the next time they are chatting.

Pure you have listened too much to the rhetoric of the liberals. The Germans were not innocent in WWII and the Americans who went to war against them were not evil for killing the Germans. The free world that believed in God did not condone rape and murder although there were some that did these things. The Germans were evil because their belief in the superman was evil and the communist are evil today as is radical Islam today. If we don't kill them they will not think twice about killing us. I don't base this fact on the Bible but on reasoning. Once you give up reasoning you have lost it all.

 

[sr71plt]

Hey there, sr. Might I ask what beliefs keep you from being satisfied with labeling yourself an atheist, or will that make you pull a Stella on me? (If so, then forget I even asked about asking, heh.) I will respect a "that's private and I don't want to share" answer, but I thought I'd ask just in case you felt like sharing. I certainly understand and respect your intellectual honest with yourself (the "I'm not going to pretend to believe..."), and it's sad that this isn't universal among us humans. Perhaps if we evolve further (who am I kidding, right?).

Most interesting is your saying that you can see how people can become atheists (that their beliefs would lead them there). Can you please expound?

Also with your post before this, you say something to the effect of "you either believe or you don't" as if that's one of the logical points, as if one must make up his mind and choose a side. Where do you place the seeker, those who say "until I know more, I am uncomfortable with either position"?

My own definition of athiest requires an active disbelief in there being a god. I have so many unknowns in how we got here and how everything remains in balance as much as it does and why certain things happen that I couldn't possibly say I was an athiest--that I actively disbelieved in the concept of their being a force that put all of this into motion.

I'm actually quite active in the Christian church and always have been and can be slotted more in the "trying to believe and remain open to belief in God" mode--if for no other reason than that the institutional church is at the foundation of my environmentally acquired moral structure. I must say that the old I get the less I see it likely that there's a burning bush revelation in my future--but I'm not at all in the militant mood to go with any other religious construct I've studied. It's sort of "no harm in sticking with the institution until/unless I get a revelation to the contrary."

I'd label myself as an agnostic a long time before I'd get anywhere close to saying I'm an athiest. I don't see the need to put the energy and negativity in pushing myself to athiest.

I can see people saying they are athiests within the definition of belief that you cited from what I posted before. If that's what they genuinely believe, than the discussion is over--that's what they would be. And I don't see a problem with someone genuinely believing that--or question the possibility that they would.

No, I can't expound on "either you genuinely believe or you genuinely don't believe"--because to me it's a axiom. But it isn't a believe/don't believe wholesale on sweeping concepts--it's a believe/don't believe on each minute aspect of the concept--that somehow tallies up into an acceptance/rejection of the whole based on accumulating belief/disbelief on each of those aspects.

I have no need to change from a Methodist. But if I did, I'm pretty sure my first step away from it would be to Unitarian. I'm not looking for any drastic changes in my life.

I would place the "seeker, those who says until I know more, I am uncomfortable with either position" pretty much in the agnostic zone. The seeker would not be a seeker at all if he/she were an athiest, I don't think. They would "know" where they stood.

Actually, I think most people in the States, at least, are in the "seeker who says until I know more I am going to choose to be comfortable where I am" zone.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I will be there to give you somebody to bounce your ideas around on.

Oh shit, say it ain't so!

Maybe they will be REALLY, REALLY heavy...

 

[wmrs2]

It's a common misconception that hinduism is not monotheistic - early Christian explorers got confused by the meaning of devas, which are the personification of different aspects of God. See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Devas_.26_Dev.C4.ABs

( checked the link just in time - the one I originally copied would have lead to uhm... not quite so spiritual realms....)

In the higher forms of vedanta even the concept of God is meant to be a working hypothesis rather than the revered incarnation - that's where most "loftier" branches of religion meet. God becomes a "That", "The absolute", "That which is", or, even better "That from which words recoil in horror".
In Hinduism the realisation that you yourself are God is taken as a sign of progress, depending of course on which particular branch you are following your spiritual path.

Interestingly, they also have the model of the oscillating (expanding/contracting) universe, that became fashionable in recent years again.

In Hinduism the realisation that you yourself are God is taken as a sign of progress, depending of course on which particular branch you are following your spiritual path.

Does this verse surprise you? Jn:10:34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by wmrs2
"More educated Americans are not atheists."

Then posted by 3Goat:
"I would like to see where you got a number on that one."


I don't have any trouble believing the wmrs2 statement is true (without the need to count noses). Athiesm takes effort. I would believe that most educated Americans are agnostics--probably unacknowledged agnostics.

I don't see much reference to agnostic here--and I think that's quite a large slice of the pie when people come down to accepting what they really believe about this topic.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Originally Posted by wmrs2
"More educated Americans are not atheists."

Then posted by 3Goat:
"I would like to see where you got a number on that one."


I don't have any trouble believing the wmrs2 statement is true (without the need to count noses). Athiesm takes effort. I would believe that most educated Americans are agnostics--probably unacknowledged agnostics.

I don't see much reference to agnostic here--and I think that's quite a large slice of the pie when people come down to accepting what they really believe about this topic.

Right or wrong wasn't the point. It was a baseless statement when said by wmrs2. I wanted to see how they backed that up, and if they had any integrity where facts are concerned.

And in all actuality I was arguing the wrong point. w's post had nothing to do with the statement at hand about educated people being more likely the be atheists. More of a percentage ratio than a less than/greater than statement.

 

[wmrs2]

Perhaps I'm reading more into your answer than you meant, but are you saying that atheist are not normal because their thinking is not what you term correct?

If so, then I have to say that your entire answer is a crock. I don't believe that there is an absolute truth. Even as a Christian I don't believe that. So I guess I'm not normal either.

You know that I was not saying atheist were not normal. You intentionally make it appear as if I am bringing a personal insult to atheist. I am challenging the reasoning process of atheist. Your retort was not very intellectual or given in the spirit in which I offered my point of view. Your retort marks the end of conversation and the beginning of trolling. The thread is about why Americans do not like atheist. Here you have an example of a Christian atheist trying to accuse another person falsely. Why would I not dislike you?

 

[wmrs2]

Hogwash. You believe in magic and bronze age fairytales, both of which fly in the face of rational thought; end of story.

Hooper does not know what I believe as I have not stated my beliefs as yet. Therefore any rational person knows that his retort is unfair and not intellectual at all. It also marks the beginning of trolling on this thread.

 

[wmrs2]

What the fuck is a True Believer™ doing on a pr0n writers' forum?

This person uses a very immoral attack on me here. He does not know if I am a true believer but he is only interested in showing his superior intellectual ability so he attacks me for being on a writer's porn forum. Really what he is pissed at is the following.

See, there you go with the blame game. It is a matter of logic. not a contest to see who is doing the most good or evil in the world. You don't find truth that way.

The point is the difference between an atheist and a theist is that a theist believes in absolute truth or an Absolute, called God. The truth is the only premise that makes sense of reasoning or correct inferences. It is possible to have the truth and make the incorrect deductions from the truth. This explains different religions, Puritans, the Inquisition, horrors of war, the Crusades, modern day fanatics, etc.

The point being, the misuse of the truth does not qualify as an argument against God's existence. It does light the fires for debate of good versus evil. But, again you are debating absolutes-good and evil.

Do you not understand that when you point to evils in the world, you are saying there is a good by which you judge evil? What is your standard of good. Here is where an atheist admits that there is a God, a good, or else he could never point out an evil thing like the In question. Get it?

There is no personal insult in the above statement. I simply question the reasoning process of an atheist. Trolls can not stand to answer questions that they can not answer so their defense is to personally attack. Trolls have no class whatever.

 

[amicus]

Guess I can slip back into the, ahm, conversation here. I am assuming you quoted yourself here?

".... Here is where an atheist admits that there is a God, a good, or else he could never point out an evil thing like the In question. Get it? ..."

'Good', as defined by this atheist, is that which benefits man and that is determined by reality, not a supernatural being.

Amicus

 

[wmrs2]

You quite obviously don't me at all to make those statements regarding my faith or my beliefs.

Your statements tell me all I care to know.

You must be a masochist to arrive at an insult from me on post 272 because I was stating the position in which I believe. It has nothing to do with you personally. Do you always fall apart like this when somebody offers a different opinion than yours? You are turning into a troll.

 

[wmrs2]

And there's another reason. There are many who are Christians, but not confident enough in their beliefs, so they cling to Jesus like a raft. They feel threatened by the fact that people can live full, happy and meaningful lives without that.

I agree with what you say here Liar but I am not the one threatened on this thread. I know what I believe. I can defend and support my beliefs without clinging to Jesus like a raft. Here on this thread the trolls are threatened and show it.

 

[wmrs2]

"Get it?" Jesus, you speak like you're the only person who's had a Philosophy 101 class.

What else you got, kid?

("Get it?" Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahk. Fucking Philosophy students think they know everything....)

Jpe. what intellectual point and philosophical statement are you making here? This sarcasm was found os Trolling Cass 101. Never would a person behave like this in Philosophy 101. What made you so hot and bothered, kid?

 

[wmrs2]

My point is, I think all people are snobs when it comes to something they strongly believe in. Just look at wmrs2 there. So I don't think it's "snobbishness" that makes atheists so hated.


Ultimately, atheism is hated because it says, "Santa Claus doesn't exist." And people don't want to hear that.


Human beings rarely want cherished beliefs questioned. And they will do a lot more than merely "hate" someone who questions them. Like torture, burn, vilify and massacre them.

I agree with your basic statements but what did I say that reflected snobbishness? The arguments I have given have been very fundamental in any intellectual discussion of religion. Was I snobbish because I talked over your head or did you object to my opinion. Maybe I should kiss your ass before offering my opinion? Did you take Trolling 101 also?

 

[wmrs2]

I think it is that simple, the majority of people are not atheists, and thus it does not matter if the atheist says the religious people are snobbish as you do, Because the Christians are the majority and view the atheists that way.

i'm not a christian, nor am I an atheist. Both sides typically seem to consider themselves superior to me. So i say fuck 'em both.


If someone thinks they're better than me, i take it as proof that they aren't.

slainte

You know something, I agree with you totally.

 

[wmrs2]

I am an arrogant snob.

Amicus... not so much arrogant as overcompensating.

Yes you are. You have all the makings of a good troll.

 

[wmrs2]

Oh I'm not confused at all. I know what I believe in. I simply don't feel that everyone must conform to my belief system or risk being called stupid, confused or any of the other names you've used so far.

You're a pompous and arrogant, self-righteous jerk. Hope you enjoy your life like that.

I looked but simply could not find where I called anybody any such names. Could you point out these cites for me? You also took Trolling 101 also.

 

[jomar]

...

Actually, I think most people in the States, at least, are in the "seeker who says until I know more I am going to choose to be comfortable where I am" zone.

And they go to church more for the community than the religion.

I know a lot of these types, at least.

 

[wmrs2]

Indeed. In fact, I'm quite sure that attitudes like his are what drive people away from Christianity in droves.

Poor thing - Jesus will be so pissed off.

Because of the accusations that I have used name calling, I have read all post in these threads. Would you please cite the thread where I called any names or stop your bitching.