Atheist!

[slyc_willie]

I am pretty much on the sidelines here, as an atheist with an objective set of moral standards

Funny. I believe in God and have the same. I'm just not Christian.

 

[amicus]

Funny. I believe in God and have the same. I'm just not Christian.

~~~


Hmmm...the actual content of my personal morality is very similar to that of many religious tenets and perhaps yours as well...interesting...

ami

 

[Stella_Omega]

I say this over and over again; if our children went to Sunday Science shool, instead of bible school. They could go one nature walks, look at the real world, learn what science is, how to persue genuine enquiries.

Imagine all of that passion for learning, opened up to empirical methodology, and encouraged to enlarge on the body of knowledge!

Instead, Christians-- and most particularly fundamentalists dig themselves into one mere book, a ragbag of apocryphia, fable, political commentary, gossip, all rendered barely recognisable over thousands of years of telephone-game-repetition. And call it Truth with a capital T.

Such a waste of lives and minds.

 

[Guest]

I say this over and over again; if our children went to Sunday Science shool, instead of bible school. They could go one nature walks, look at the real world, learn what science is, how to persue genuine enquiries.

Imagine all of that passion for learning, opened up to empirical methodology, and encouraged to enlarge on the body of knowledge!

Instead, Christians-- and most particularly fundamentalists dig themselves into one mere book, a ragbag of apocryphia, fable, political commentary, gossip, all rendered barely recognisable over thousands of years of telephone-game-repetition. And call it Truth with a capital T.

Such a waste of lives and minds.

You know, our daughter was confirmed last spring. We allowed her to do whatever she wished with church and Sunday school. We supported it all.

Since then, as she's been reading and studying, she has had many questions about the role of religion as opposed to science. She is having a great deal of difficulty managing it all.

She is probably going to go to vet school, brilliant child that she is.

We'll stay supportive. She'll figure it out.

 

[slyc_willie]

Instead, Christians-- and most particularly fundamentalists dig themselves into one mere book, a ragbag of apocryphia, fable, political commentary, gossip, all rendered barely recognisable over thousands of years of telephone-game-repetition. And call it Truth with a capital T.

This is what's always bothered me, and why I couldn't resist my two cents. Insistent arrogance is always, as far as I'm concerned, essentially ignorance. If anyone is so right they have to pound it into other people's heads, that shows either brainwashing or a basic fear that they aren't as faithful as they want others to believe.

Or they have an agenda of control.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You know, our daughter was confirmed last spring. We allowed her to do whatever she wished with church and Sunday school. We supported it all.

Since then, as she's been reading and studying, she has had many questions about the role of religion as opposed to science. She is having a great deal of difficulty managing it all.

She is probably going to go to vet school, brilliant child that she is.

We'll stay supportive. She'll figure it out.

You're not fundamentalists.

 

[Guest]

You're not fundamentalists.

Our daughter is more important.

 

[amicus]

Not to be unecessarily argumentative, but I do and will defend thoughts and conclusions.

Faith, belief, Religion with a capital R, played a very large part in forming early and mid era civilizations by providing a commonality of thought and morals.

Insofar as 'arrogance' is concerned, in the dialectic of the time, there could be only one 'right' way to view the universe.

I beat the following drum so often even I tired of it, but a full half of all humans simply do not have the mental capacity to do other than, 'believe'; it is as necessary for them as knowledge is to that tiny percentage at the top of the curve.

That holds true today as well as it did five thousand years ago and explains why religion has continued to play a role in all major societies; it is a needed aspect of civilization.

A huge factor in choosing a religion, where choice is permitted, is the certainty of truth/resurrection, life after death and a reason to find value in living life, day to day through good times and bad.

I suggest the IQ level of about 120-125, is the dividing line, and within that parameter is also the doubt, anger, confusion and 'arrogance', referred to above.

for what it's worth...

amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Self evidenced by the vicious manner in which they have attacked wmrs2, right from day one, gang bang and with all the filth that goes with it. You think you folks are invisible?

That's a crock. Most posters have been far more polite to wmrs2 than wmrs2 has been to anyone. I know I have. That poster started by posting a disgusting story line to another thread and then goading posters to take him/her/it on (in very direct words).

The posters you say are ganging up together disagree with each other as much as they do with wmrs2. And you're still my leading candidate for being wmrs2. You've just become bored that no one is paying much attention to you anymore and broadening your attention-getting game. But it don't bother me a bit. Just another Internet chat board game.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

We have actually given thought to what you ask. The reason we are here is because of the Gadfly in our nature. We like to poke fun of ignorance and make ignorance uncomfortable. Your testimony is a witness that we are having success. Sorry that you can not only have an agreeable audience to preach to, but gadflies must fly past a lot of cow dung to hit their targets.

No dear, I do not believe that you have ever passed a dung heap. You came here with the intent of creating a cesspool out of an intelligent conversation, so that you might take a dive and go swimming in it. How does it feel to be the queen of your out shit?

 

[DeeZire]

Hey wmrs2 - Would you mind posting some of the Bible verses they used to use to justify slavery? I'd be curious as to how you'd interpret them, now that slavery is no longer in vogue. I mean, if you're going to ignore the slavery bit but embrace the hating-God bit, what does that say about the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible?

(Anyone want to bet wmrs2 never addresses this particular post?)

 

[Stella_Omega]

Every once in a while, I just can't stop myself;

Not to be unecessarily argumentative, but I do and will defend thoughts and conclusions.

One never needs to defend thoughts. Conclusions however, do need to be defended. They eiother need to be couched as opinions-- which many conclusions legitimately are-- or they need supporting proofs if you, or I, are going to state them as what we might call "proven theory" or "Self evident."

Faith, belief, Religion with a capital R, played a very large part in forming early and mid era civilizations by providing a commonality of thought and morals.

yeah, duh.

Insofar as 'arrogance' is concerned, in the dialectic of the time, there could be only one 'right' way to view the universe.

Whatever that statement is apropro of, i have no idea. What is "the dialectic of the time?"

I beat the following drum so often even I tired of it, but a full half of all humans simply do not have the mental capacity to do other than, 'believe'; it is as necessary for them as knowledge is to that tiny percentage at the top of the curve.

That holds true today as well as it did five thousand years ago and explains why religion has continued to play a role in all major societies; it is a needed aspect of civilization.

I disagree with these two statements. Our belief system is nurtured by our common culture, which has been nurtured by belief; This is not a biological function, rather it is a potential function, biologically speaking. In the same way that anyone can be a better dancer with practice, even if his muscles do not contain as many quick-reflex cells as the next person's do. (WTF are those called? i can't remember), and a naturally athletic person can couch-potatoe all their jock potential away, our minds can be molded to rely on belief even if we really don't need it-- and another person, who could be belief dependent can be raised to not be so, but to place that energy into a desire, instead, for knowledge.

A huge factor in choosing a religion, where choice is permitted, is the certainty of truth/resurrection, life after death and a reason to find value in living life, day to day through good times and bad.

Again, I say this is cultural. A people who commonly do not worry about a life after death-- will continue to not worry about this, and will still find all sorts of coping mechanisms to get through life. That so many of us rely on the ones that are available via the soup kitchen of the soul-- just says that that kitchen is easy to get to.

I suggest the IQ level of about 120-125, is the dividing line, and within that parameter is also the doubt, anger, confusion and 'arrogance', referred to above.

You are saying that a high IQ means a natural arrogance? I'd say that many people accused of arrogance claim a high IQ as an excuse.

 

[slyc_willie]

You are saying that a high IQ means a natural arrogance? I'd say that many people accused of arrogance claim a high IQ as an excuse.

Amicus will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure, but I think what he's getting at is that there is a level of intelligence at which one is able to contemplate more abstract definitions of faith, belief and religion, but are not quite intelligent enough to apply them. It's like being able to think 'outside the box' but still only concerning one's self with what is still inside the 'box.' I've heard this before -- can't remember where, or when, but it's not new.

I agree that a lot of arrogant people -- such as many scientists, teachers, and evangelists -- justify their arrogance by virtue of their having a high degree of intelligence (or at least claiming to have it). It's a convenient and established rationalization, because their faults can be overlooked thanks to the work or results they produce.

As far as the rest of Ami's argument, I see where he's coming from. Religion has played a powerful role in just about every civilization on this planet. One could easily infer that religion is therefore necessary for any civilization to grow and remain organized. That may be true. Or it may also be true that a truly atheistic civilization could thrive just as well. As far as I know, there's not much evidence for such.

A thought: are the arguments for atheism based upon the definition of the term (as in, no belief in a supreme being or any other being/force existing on a higher plane) or the belief in something other than a god or group of gods?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Atheist;

One who does not believe in gods.

Gods;

Beings that exist outside of the natural world, usually powerful in supernatural ways. Some gods are considered to be supreme creators, self aware, omniscient, and omnipotent.

Those are the critters that atheists have no belief in.

 

[slyc_willie]

Atheist;

One who does not believe in gods.

Gods;

Beings that exist outside of the natural world, usually powerful in supernatural ways. Some gods are considered to be supreme creators, self aware, omniscient, and omnipotent.

Those are the critters that atheists have no belief in.

But do they believe in something? That's what I was asking.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But do they believe in something? That's what I was asking.

Sure, atheists will find other beliefs to indulge in;

Ami believes in Ayn Rand.

I believe in the power of Love, and lube.

But lacking that most unifying of beliefs, namely gods, tends to create in most atheists a sensitivity to bullshit, as they watch so many people indulge in the stuff. Nothing like observing from the outside,yanno? Makes us pretty selfconcious and self examining about our other preconceptions, to generalise.

Most atheists are also sceptics about things like paranormal phenomina, etc.

 

[slyc_willie]

Sure, atheists will find other beliefs to indulge in;

Ami believes in Ayn Rand.

I believe in the power of Love, and lube.

But lacking that most unifying of beliefs, namely gods, tends to create in most atheists a sensitivity to bullshit, as they watch so many people indulge in the stuff. Nothing like observing from the outside,yanno? Makes us pretty selfconcious and self examining about our other preconceptions, to generalise.

Most atheists are also sceptics about things like paranormal phenomina, etc.

I was asking because I've met atheists who defined their beliefs as being, essentially, anti-God (as in, anti-Christianity, Islam, etc.) but still with tenets and doctrines attributable to those faiths. That doesn't strike me as being strictly atheist. It's more like anti-establishment.

I've yet to meet anyone who absolutely does not believe in any sort of higher-order force or being or plane at all. But I'd love to talk to them.

 

[amicus]

But do they believe in something? That's what I was asking.

~~~

Nothing, slyc, as 'belief' is the opposite of knowledge and has no place in a rational philosophy.

I call it scientific method. All things existing have evidence of their existence. There being no evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, therefore, none exist.

There are things that man does not understand and may never understand, but the existence of a god or gods would contradict that which we do understand/know about reality and existence.

The basis of knowledge is an accurate perception of that which is, reality, and identifying the characteristics that make it what it is.

Not quite sure the nature of your question but I hope that answers it sufficiently?

amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

We are now sure that you are a theological dumb ass. Tell us, who would be so stupid to commission you to write something about the Bible? You make broad statements that God is unknowable and that there is a fundamental message under all those words and images and stories. Even your liberal mind should be able to recognize the delusion in this statement. If God is unknowable, or if God does not exist, how could you be so dumb to claim or even think there was a message in the Bible for you?

How can you and your pack be writers when you can not even think? You better change the subject fast from the Bible to something else before the whole thread and forum realize you do not know shit about the Bible or God. One more thing, you claim to know so much about what a Christian is not, so please tell us what a Christian is in your point of view. Please do not use the Bible in your definition as you are already screwed up enough as it is in the Bible's interpretation.

That is pretty simple to answer - and I hope that sr71plt doesn't mind if I do that quickly. Whereas the O.T. is a set of stories by different authors we cannot identify, but share the loose connection that the content has been "revealed" to them (in other words - some experience met with a very specific mindset), the N.T. is most likely based on writers who either were contemporaries of Jesus, or wrote down what had been circulating about him soon after.

If one stipulates that Jesus was in fact a real person and the stories and quotations are authentic to a certain degree, the statement "I and the father are One" becomes the starting point for his message. The only time Jesus showed any anger was when he drove away the "bankers" from the temple, a sentiment a lot of people can relate to in these trouble times, apart from the tree incident and venting his frustration that his disciples didn't manage to stay awake with him. Very clearly he opposed the self-righteous who tried to stone a "sinner" and very clearly he indicated that it is not up to us to judge others, but to God alone. He wasn't overly concerned with following the "law" of the O.T. either, if you recall, but gave a very clear indication of how what is written there has to be interpreted through his words and actions.

Jesus tended to stress forgiveness through his life and his allegories. If he was the embodiment of God's qualities the image of a "hating" God becomes very very difficult to uphold. Did he not forgive even the "atheists" who killed him on the cross? Did he not consort with "sinners" and "atheists" like prostitutes and tollkeepers?

Yet you seem convinced that you know more than Jesus did, that you can judge and tell us what God is like and how he sees us - and excuse me, this strikes me as more than just a little bit of megalomania and self-righteousness - and almost certainly not Christian at all, as I would understand it.

The message seems to be reasonably clear as to how we have to conduct ourselves, and how certain qualities of God were embodied in Jesus - anything beyond that would be idle speculation, or limited interpretations of very limited minds, some apparently more limited than others.

The decision to include the O.T. was made by the Church, one of many errors in judgement I would think they made, but hey, to err is human.

 

[slyc_willie]

~~~

Nothing, slyc, as 'belief' is the opposite of knowledge and has no place in a rational philosophy.

I call it scientific method. All things existing have evidence of their existence. There being no evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, therefore, none exist.

There are things that man does not understand and may never understand, but the existence of a god or gods would contradict that which we do understand/know about reality and existence.

The basis of knowledge is an accurate perception of that which is, reality, and identifying the characteristics that make it what it is.

Not quite sure the nature of your question but I hope that answers it sufficiently?

amicus...

Well, yes, but . . . .

To me, it's anathema for any living, creative, intelligent being to discount anything. The more we learn, after all, the less we are proved to truly know.

I am reminded of Einstein and his 'cosmic constant.' Even one of the most brilliant minds in human history could not discount the existence of some kind of force/being/something that would account for the disparities his own theories proposed.

I disagree that 'belief' has no place in a rational philosophy. To discuss philosophy, or even present your point, you have to believe that what you propose is true. Therefore, you have at least established a belief in something, if only a concept.

As far as I am concerned, there is no existence without belief or faith.

 

[wmrs2]

I'm only going on the irrationality of recent posts. He/she/they try awfully hard to convince everyone how right they are. A typical evangelical attitude, one that is threatened when challenged.

But hey, this is free speech. And wmrs2 doesn't seem all that dissuaded.

Look, slyc Willie, you say the irrationality of recent posts, but you lack the intestinal fortitude or intellectual honesty to cite irrationality of any position that wmrs2 has taken. You "nuts" claim that you do not believe in self-evident truths and at the same time expect everybody else to self-evidently see that we are wrong. What a joke you are to science and logic. Stella says that self-evident truths are non scientific. What are you doing saying our post are irrational without scientifically or logically pointing out the fallacies in our arguments?

We have been threatened by you but not challenged. On an intellectual forum of authors, we expect to be challenged but you fake authors prove that you are not up to the task since we still await your ability to debunk any of our theories. Well, there is a challenge to you. Use your great intellect to show everybody how smart you are or remain silent and show how stupid you really are.

 

[amicus]

Well, yes, but . . . .

To me, it's anathema for any living, creative, intelligent being to discount anything. The more we learn, after all, the less we are proved to truly know.

I am reminded of Einstein and his 'cosmic constant.' Even one of the most brilliant minds in human history could not discount the existence of some kind of force/being/something that would account for the disparities his own theories proposed.

I disagree that 'belief' has no place in a rational philosophy. To discuss philosophy, or even present your point, you have to believe that what you propose is true. Therefore, you have at least established a belief in something, if only a concept.

As far as I am concerned, there is no existence without belief or faith.

Slyc:

"...I've yet to meet anyone who absolutely does not believe in any sort of higher-order force or being or plane at all. But I'd love to talk to them..."

~~~

I took you at your word there and I do not assume the role of convincing you or anyone to accept my thoughts.

Not sure I understand the first part of your paragraph one, acquisition of knowledge does sometimes open more doors than expected and leave one uncertain until another ephiphany of knowledge takes you by the nose. Never for a moment have I accepted the myth that the more we know the less we know.

Einstein was a genius, no doubt, but I would not go to him for advice on gardening nor on faith or the lack of it.

Your third paragraph creates a problem with me...how to tell you gently and courteously that in Philosophy 101 the first the the Prof lays on the Freshman is to dispell all belief's you have accumulated and begin your studies with an open, objective mind.

There is no belief involved in discovering truth, establishing absolute foundations and proceding to acquire more knowledge that is consistent and congruent with reality.

Your last statement is your belief and you are welcome to it.

You might consider this...acquiring faith is not free. In Christianity for example, you sacrifice your own identity, your own ability to use your mind and make moral judgments outside the constraints of your religion. The Altruistic mentality of sacrifice of the individual for a greater good, be it God or Karl Marx, is unthinkable for me.

I was an atheist as a pre teen, long before I discovered the late Ms. Rand. I would, however, credit Robert Heinlein and Philip Wylie, whom I met, for guidance along the path of reason and rationality and away from faith and belief.

Amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

Look, slyc Willie, you say the irrationality of recent posts, but you lack the intestinal fortitude or intellectual honesty to cite irrationality of any position that wmrs2 has taken. You "nuts" claim that you do not believe in self-evident truths and at the same time expect everybody else to self-evidently see that we are wrong. What a joke you are to science and logic. Stella says that self-evident truths are non scientific. What are you doing saying our post are irrational without scientifically or logically pointing out the fallacies in our arguments?

We have been threatened by you but not challenged. On an intellectual forum of authors, we expect to be challenged but you fake authors prove that you are not up to the task since we still await your ability to debunk any of our theories. Well, there is a challenge to you. Use your great intellect to show everybody how smart you are or remain silent and show how stupid you really are.

You play a very interesting game, wmrs2. I find it not the least bit telling that of all my recent posts, you choose the one you quoted. Daring me to debate you.

You don't want debate. You want personal valediction which can only be gained through discourse and conflict. Your fallacies have already been revealed by previous posters, and I really don't think anyone wants to rehash all that chaos again.

Suffice to say that you have a chip on your shoulder and you're looking to start another fight. You aren't going to find one with me because I know what you are, as do many of us here: biblical knowledge and debate tactics aside, you're just looking for attention. We call that being an 'attention whore.' Good luck with that.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd rather get back to more interesting discussion. If I wanted to listen to rants like yours, John Hagee is just around the corner from where I live.

 

[slyc_willie]

You might consider this...acquiring faith is not free. In Christianity for example, you sacrifice your own identity, your own ability to use your mind and make moral judgments outside the constraints of your religion. The Altruistic mentality of sacrifice of the individual for a greater good, be it God or Karl Marx, is unthinkable for me.

Faith is not supposed to be free, Ami. That's the point. It's like entering into government or military service. You give up a certain amount of yourself for the sake of joining something you believe to be greater than yourself. That's where the altruism kicks in, that 'noble' idea of doing something that benefits others and not necessarily yourself.

Besides, if you didn't have at least some shred of altruism in you, why would you be talking to someone you know doesn't agree with you?

 

[amicus]

That's where the altruism kicks in, that 'noble' idea of doing something that benefits others and not necessarily yourself.

Besides, if you didn't have at least some shred of altruism in you, why would you be talking to someone you know doesn't agree with you?

~~~

Dunno where you got the idea that self sacrifice is 'noble'. Many give to a charity and feel good about it when they should have created a business and jobs and provided employment.

And please do not try to turn my participation here into an attack on my character and philosophy as so many do. I am here, doing what I do, for my pleasure and my entertainment, not yours or anyone else's.

I do not fault anyone for their faith or belief in whatever it takes to get them 'through the night', as the saying goes; then again I do not tolerate those who proclaim superiority whilst drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a fictional character either.

I don't socialize much, never have, here or elsewhere and when I engage in a conversation with someone, I expect reason and rationality to be the guiding force in a civil discussion.

If you are like most I have met who profess an intelligent faith, my criticism of altruism, self sacrifice, may be a bit jarring and you may never have run up against it before.

Perhaps we will explore that and other facets of faith versus reason.

Amicus...