NationStates Jolt Archive

I really have to get this off my chest. I hate atheists. Not all of them, in fact I feel kind of bad for those people who have become so disillusioned with the world that they cannot believe in anything else. No, but I have noticed that ALOT of atheists seem to be quite willing to attack Christianity. They quote obscure passages from freaked out insignificant prophets who loathe anything and everything around them and assume that we take their ramblings to be truth.

We are not all fundamentalists.
We are not all racists.
We are not all hypocrites, pro-lifers or anti-drugs campaigners.
We are not all determined to convert you on the street.

"Love your god with all your heart and all your mind and all your body"
"Love your neighbour as yourself"

just as you say that fundamentalists of christianity do not represent you, the same is for atheists. if you are willing to love, you shouldn't hate atheists. thery are "god's children" too, right?

:shock:

I am one of those said "atheists" although I hate having a label. I am also one of those critics of organized religion, including Christianity. However, I do consider myself a bit more "spiritual" than most atheists.

While there are PLENTY of radical Christians, Jews, etc... I also know that not ALL Christians, Jews, etc are the same. I treat each as an individual regardless of their beliefs.

So while you wish that that some Atheists not include ALL Christians, Jews, etc into one category... I am sure they would expect the same courtesy from you.

I really have to get this off my chest. I hate christians. Not all of them, in fact I feel kind of bad for those people who have become so disillusioned with the world that they cannot believe in anything else. No, but I have noticed that ALOT of christians seem to be quite willing to attack Atheism. They quote obscure passages from freaked out insignificant prophets (like Freud or Marx) who loathe anything and everything around them and assume that we take their ramblings to be truth.

We are not all fundamentalists.
We are not all anti-christian.
We are not all hypocrites, pro-abortioners or drugs campaigners.
We are not all determined to convert you on the street.

"Love your self with all your heart and all your mind and all your body"
"Love your equal as yourself"

I really have to get this off my chest. I hate christians. Not all of them, in fact I feel kind of bad for those people who have become so disillusioned with the world that they cannot believe in anything else. No, but I have noticed that ALOT of christians seem to be quite willing to attack Atheism. They quote obscure passages from freaked out insignificant prophets (like Freud or Marx) who loathe anything and everything around them and assume that we take their ramblings to be truth.

We are not all fundamentalists.
We are not all anti-christian.
We are not all hypocrites, pro-abortioners or drugs campaigners.
We are not all determined to convert you on the street.

"Love your self with all your heart and all your mind and all your body"
"Love your equal as yourself"

Actually, I am a marxist

Now we're both stereotypes
you post the traditional "I hate all atheists because they think Christians are all the same" thread
and I post the expected "Using your words to say the exact opposite thing" response
Ahhhh NationStates...

I'm agnostic, so haha! Ahem....anyways I'm not denying that there's the possibility that a Omnipotent being exist, but until I see it for myself...I will continue being a skeptic.

Remember the bible was written by an easily corruptable creature known as Man.

Actually, I am a marxist
Interesting....And you are still a fan of "the opiate of the masses"?
regardless...I'm a pretty hardcore capitalist, and I still wouldn't call Marx insignificant (I'm also a half-Psychology major, and I WOULD call Freud insignificant) but both are stereotypes associated with Atheists, and many of us (such as myself) follow neither
Darwin is the other big one, but I bet a lot more (still not all, but more) Atheists follow him
a lot more of you religious folks too...

Not all Athiests are like Cartese.

Actually, I am a marxist
Interesting....And you are still a fan of "the opiate of the masses"?
regardless...I'm a pretty hardcore capitalist, and I still wouldn't call Marx insignificant (I'm also a half-Psychology major, and I WOULD call Freud insignificant) but both are stereotypes associated with Atheists, and many of us (such as myself) follow neither
Darwin is the other big one, but I bet a lot more (still not all, but more) Atheists follow him
a lot more of you religious folks too...

Is the "opiate of the masses" quote the only one by marx that people know? Seriously, name me three others.

I guess im anti-atheism because, of the ones I know, whenever an atheist found out I was a Christian, theyve either insulted me or tried to convert me.

Also, there are sites like "the anti bible" on the internet. Why do they only attack christians and jews. Its never buddhism or hinduism. Which leads me to believe that in many teenagers its meerly a petty attempt to rebel against what they see as conformity.

Actually, I am a marxist
Interesting....And you are still a fan of "the opiate of the masses"?
regardless...I'm a pretty hardcore capitalist, and I still wouldn't call Marx insignificant (I'm also a half-Psychology major, and I WOULD call Freud insignificant) but both are stereotypes associated with Atheists, and many of us (such as myself) follow neither
Darwin is the other big one, but I bet a lot more (still not all, but more) Atheists follow him
a lot more of you religious folks too...

Is the "opiate of the masses" quote the only one by marx that people know? Seriously, name me three others.

I guess im anti-atheism because, of the ones I know, whenever an atheist found out I was a Christian, theyve either insulted me or tried to convert me.

Also, there are sites like "the anti bible" on the internet. Why do they only attack christians and jews. Its never buddhism or hinduism. Which leads me to believe that in many teenagers its meerly a petty attempt to rebel against what they see as conformity.

im agnostic...... because of this ive had TOONNNNNSSS of people try and convert me when they have found out ...... mainly christians...... ESPECIALLY baptists ..... ive gotten to the point where i dodge religious questions and dont volunteer that im not religious :?

BARF!

The extent to which you consider the “insignificant prophets” to be insignificant is the extent to which you reject Christianity. The extent to which you consider their “ramblings” to be false is the extent to which you reject Christianity. The extent to which you are not a fundamentalist is the extent to which you reject Christianity. The extent to which you choose parts of the Bible to quote while ignoring other parts is the extent to which you reject Christianity.

A Christian that rejects Christianity is a Christian I can live with. Perhaps you are struggling with Christianity more than you like to admit and feel that lashing out might solve it.

Also, there are sites like "the anti bible" on the internet. Why do they only attack christians and jews. Its never buddhism or hinduism. Which leads me to believe that in many teenagers its meerly a petty attempt to rebel against what they see as conformity.

I expect Athiests attack whatever religion has most influenced their lives, and therefore the religion that they feel that they have escaped from the brainwashing influence of, with their personal revelation that there is no God. Most athiests you have met have probably been influenced more by Judeo-christian beliefs than anything else. They most likely know nothing about Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism etc, and therefore do not have anything to attack. There also isn't a vast availability of Sihks or Shintoists or whatever to launch an invective at.

Most atheists don't go on about it, just like most christians don't. It's only a few, and those will be the few that you're more likely to come across, because they don't shut up about it. I don't think they're as numerous as the fundamentalist christians, though, so they make up for it with loudness.

I like to argue occasionally, mainly because, like most other people who get in these kinds of arguments, I want to tell everyone why I'm right and they're wrong. Usually after a few hours, I realise what an asshole I'm being and stop, but some people take it to extremes.

I think your problem is with argumentative, offensive people, not atheists.

:lol:

Wow..."insignificant prophets" eh?

The extent to which you consider the “insignificant prophets” to be insignificant is the extent to which you reject Christianity. The extent to which you consider their “ramblings” to be false is the extent to which you reject Christianity. The extent to which you are not a fundamentalist is the extent to which you reject Christianity. The extent to which you choose parts of the Bible to quote while ignoring other parts is the extent to which you reject Christianity.

A Christian that rejects Christianity is a Christian I can live with. Perhaps you are struggling with Christianity more than you like to admit and feel that lashing out might solve it.

Huh? :roll:
Who is this directed to?

:lol:

Wow..."insignificant prophets" eh?

Heh, yeah. From his own religion.

Dhomme, I can see where you are coming from when you say that many atheists attack christianity. Come to think of it, i dont see why they would only attack the western group of religions and not eastern ones. The only way I could see that is if they were only attacked my christians etc. so maybe the problem isnt that they are attacking christianity but that christians are always attacking them.

PS. I am agnostic, i dont know if a god or gods exist, honestly, i dont care. I respect other's points of view and dont critisize them for it.(for the most part...nazi, skin heads etc. are not included) I sometimes ask questions of those religious folk, because i dont understand what would drive them to devote thier lives to something that has no logic basis what-so-ever. but thats their thing, whatever.

My post is directed to DHomme. The quotes are taken from his first post.

Dhomme, I can see where you are coming from when you say that many atheists attack christianity. Come to think of it, i dont see why they would only attack the western group of religions and not eastern ones. The only way I could see that is if they were only attacked my christians etc. so maybe the problem isnt that they are attacking christianity but that christians are always attacking them.

PS. I am agnostic, i dont know if a god or gods exist, honestly, i dont care. I respect other's points of view and dont critisize them for it.(for the most part...nazi, skin heads etc. are not included) I sometimes ask questions of those religious folk, because i dont understand what would drive them to devote thier lives to something that has no logic basis what-so-ever. but thats their thing, whatever.

The reason you've never heard atheists attacking Christianity or Judiasm is because the atheists you've most likely met are former members of that religion. I'm sure that there are plenty of atheists in India who attack Hinduism and Buddhism, or atheists in the Middle East who attack Islam, but you don't talk to them, you only talk to atheists who grew out of Christianity or Judiasm.

Dhomme, I can see where you are coming from when you say that many atheists attack christianity. Come to think of it, i dont see why they would only attack the western group of religions and not eastern ones. The only way I could see that is if they were only attacked my christians etc. so maybe the problem isnt that they are attacking christianity but that christians are always attacking them.

PS. I am agnostic, i dont know if a god or gods exist, honestly, i dont care. I respect other's points of view and dont critisize them for it.(for the most part...nazi, skin heads etc. are not included) I sometimes ask questions of those religious folk, because i dont understand what would drive them to devote thier lives to something that has no logic basis what-so-ever. but thats their thing, whatever.

The reason you've never heard atheists attacking Christianity or Judiasm is because the atheists you've most likely met are former members of that religion. I'm sure that there are plenty of atheists in India who attack Hinduism and Buddhism, or atheists in the Middle East who attack Islam, but you don't talk to them, you only talk to atheists who grew out of Christianity or Judiasm.

my history professor is indian....... she moved here and converted to christianity... shes alwayz attacking hinduism

I think it all depends on the motives. Most Atheists, in my experience (and I can only speak from my own experience) who truly have come to a place of atheisim through self-questioning and rational thought do not feel a "need" to attack anyone. They are simply content in their beliefs and, so long as no one tries to force others on them, they are more than happy to let anyone believe what they wish to. The same can be said for Theists who have come to their faith in a truthful manner and not as the product of social conditioning or fear.

On the other hand, you do have those on both sides of the equation who feel a need to either revenge themselves on what they consider to be a repressive theology with a stranglehold on creative expression and rational thought. These tend to be no better than fundamentalist Theists who try to out shout all viewpoints other than their own because, at the base, their faith is brittle and won't survive outside inspection.

It all comes back to the process of human belief. If you truly BELIEVE something, then you don't really care what anyone else thinks and can wonder at the differences in opinion because you are content in your own perceptions.

The extent to which you consider the “insignificant prophets” to be insignificant is the extent to which you reject Christianity. The extent to which you consider their “ramblings” to be false is the extent to which you reject Christianity. The extent to which you are not a fundamentalist is the extent to which you reject Christianity. The extent to which you choose parts of the Bible to quote while ignoring other parts is the extent to which you reject Christianity.

A Christian that rejects Christianity is a Christian I can live with. Perhaps you are struggling with Christianity more than you like to admit and feel that lashing out might solve it.

No it actually shows that I display a little thing called "INDEPENDANT THOUGHT". The bible has so many obscure, irrelevant laws that make no sense, that they should really be dropped. Hell, even parts of the 4 major gospels are bulls***.
Its like you shouldnt take Das Kapital to be 100 percent right either. It is one man's interpretation of events. Now, if you have noticed, a violent proletariat revolution didnt seem to hit Germany if I remember correctly, more like the Russian occupiers forced a beaurocracy [sic?] choked dictatorship onto them in the name of Marx.
Nothing can be 100 percent right. To claim that it is shows you have limited intelligence and no understanding of the world you live in.

[quote=Meshuggahn]Dhomme, I can see where you are coming from when you say that many atheists attack christianity. Come to think of it, i dont see why they would only attack the western group of religions and not eastern ones. The only way I could see that is if they were only attacked my christians etc. so maybe the problem isnt that they are attacking christianity but that christians are always attacking them.

PS. I am agnostic, i dont know if a god or gods exist, honestly, i dont care. I respect other's points of view and dont critisize them for it.(for the most part...nazi, skin heads etc. are not included) I sometimes ask questions of those religious folk, because i dont understand what would drive them to devote thier lives to something that has no logic basis what-so-ever. but thats their thing, whatever.

I would be one of those people mentioned. I was raised Catholic.. however.. my personal life was influenced by great parenting (mostly my mother) and well.. my rebelliousness. I was very independent.. I always questioned things. You know.. someone mentioned that there was alot of influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs in this country.. .and that is very true. There are alot of people who believe that the US Constitution was based upon the 10 commandments. I dont believe that... I think the constitution is a result of the "Golden Rule"... which even the 10 Commandments is based upon.

And by the way...

BARF!

What the hell?

Dhomme, I can see where you are coming from when you say that many atheists attack christianity. Come to think of it, i dont see why they would only attack the western group of religions and not eastern ones. The only way I could see that is if they were only attacked my christians etc. so maybe the problem isnt that they are attacking christianity but that christians are always attacking them.

PS. I am agnostic, i dont know if a god or gods exist, honestly, i dont care. I respect other's points of view and dont critisize them for it.(for the most part...nazi, skin heads etc. are not included) I sometimes ask questions of those religious folk, because i dont understand what would drive them to devote thier lives to something that has no logic basis what-so-ever. but thats their thing, whatever.

why does she attack it?

The reason you've never heard atheists attacking Christianity or Judiasm is because the atheists you've most likely met are former members of that religion. I'm sure that there are plenty of atheists in India who attack Hinduism and Buddhism, or atheists in the Middle East who attack Islam, but you don't talk to them, you only talk to atheists who grew out of Christianity or Judiasm.

my history professor is indian....... she moved here and converted to christianity... shes alwayz attacking hinduism

[quote="DHomme"]I really have to get this off my chest. I hate atheists.

Try not to hate, Christ would never condone it.

No it actually shows that I display a little thing called "INDEPENDANT THOUGHT". The bible has so many obscure, irrelevant laws that make no sense, that they should really be dropped. Hell, even parts of the 4 major gospels are bulls***.

The trouble with that, is how can you be sure that if some parts of it are Bullshit, that the rest of it is accurate? Just because you like one section more than another, does not necessarily make that section more true. In the end, ultimate truth is not decided by what people believe.

Let's see...

I dislike
-Christianity
-Islam
-Judaism
-Hinduism
-any organized religion that attempts to suppress one's freedom

I don't hate the people, just the the "values" the religion teaches. Buddhism isn't all that bad... but I haven't researched it completely so I only know about the good parts (suffering is caused by desire, no creator gods, tolerance of other religions as long as their based on peace and love, etc.)

[quote=DHomme]I really have to get this off my chest. I hate atheists.

Try not to hate, Christ would never condone it.

I know. But when Jesus said love, he used the word "agape" which basically means "wish for the best for/ dont pray for their untimely end" and I figure Im not doing that. Still Ill try my best

No it actually shows that I display a little thing called "INDEPENDANT THOUGHT". The bible has so many obscure, irrelevant laws that make no sense, that they should really be dropped. Hell, even parts of the 4 major gospels are bulls***.

The trouble with that, is how can you be sure that if some parts of it are Bullshit, that the rest of it is accurate? Just because you like one section more than another, does not necessarily make that section more true. In the end, ultimate truth is not decided by what people believe.

Exactly

I'm an atheist in that I don't have a religion, and don't believe in religion. The question is, what have most atheists done to you? I have friends who are Christian, friends who are Hindu, friends who are Jewish...I have a lot of friends with different religions, and don't have a problem with it.

Let's see...

I dislike
-Christianity
-Islam
-Judaism
-Hinduism
-any organized religion that attempts to suppress one's freedom

I don't hate the people, just the the "values" the religion teaches. Buddhism isn't all that bad... but I haven't researched it completely so I only know about the good parts (suffering is caused by desire, no creator gods, tolerance of other religions as long as their based on peace and love, etc.)
and christianity suppresses your freedom, how exactly?

I just realised that I capitalised the word 'bullshit'. I really hope there aren't any psychology majors around here.

No it actually shows that I display a little thing called "INDEPENDANT THOUGHT". The bible has so many obscure, irrelevant laws that make no sense, that they should really be dropped. Hell, even parts of the 4 major gospels are bulls***.

The trouble with that, is how can you be sure that if some parts of it are Bullshit, that the rest of it is accurate? Just because you like one section more than another, does not necessarily make that section more true. In the end, ultimate truth is not decided by what people believe.

Exactly

Alright, this may take some time to explain.
All the different writers of all the different books wrote with different purposes/views/ideas and under different circumstances. Some (like Luke) were writing for the oppressors and were trying to shift the blame. Some books (like Leviticus) were written by right wing morons. And a few more (such as revalation) were written by complete nutters.

Now, Though these people may mess up alot of the details and add language/ stories that benefit their ideas. They end up with an overall message that is fundamentally what I believe. That Jesus was the christ of God, and he wanted all humans to live a life in which we respect one another and respect God.

No it actually shows that I display a little thing called "INDEPENDANT THOUGHT". The bible has so many obscure, irrelevant laws that make no sense, that they should really be dropped. Hell, even parts of the 4 major gospels are bulls***.

The trouble with that, is how can you be sure that if some parts of it are Bullshit, that the rest of it is accurate? Just because you like one section more than another, does not necessarily make that section more true. In the end, ultimate truth is not decided by what people believe.

Exactly

Alright, this may take some time to explain.
All the different writers of all the different books wrote with different purposes/views/ideas and under different circumstances. Some (like Luke) were writing for the oppressors and were trying to shift the blame. Some books (like Leviticus) were written by right wing morons. And a few more (such as revalation) were written by complete nutters.

Now, Though these people may mess up alot of the details and add language/ stories that benefit their ideas. They end up with an overall message that is fundamentally what I believe. That Jesus was the christ of God, and he wanted all humans to live a life in which we respect one another and respect God.

I hope answered that, and if not. Bugger

No it actually shows that I display a little thing called "INDEPENDANT THOUGHT". The bible has so many obscure, irrelevant laws that make no sense, that they should really be dropped. Hell, even parts of the 4 major gospels are bulls***.

The trouble with that, is how can you be sure that if some parts of it are Bullshit, that the rest of it is accurate? Just because you like one section more than another, does not necessarily make that section more true. In the end, ultimate truth is not decided by what people believe.

Exactly

Alright, this may take some time to explain.
All the different writers of all the different books wrote with different purposes/views/ideas and under different circumstances. Some (like Luke) were writing for the oppressors and were trying to shift the blame. Some books (like Leviticus) were written by right wing morons. And a few more (such as revalation) were written by complete nutters.

Now, Though these people may mess up alot of the details and add language/ stories that benefit their ideas. They end up with an overall message that is fundamentally what I believe. That Jesus was the christ of God, and he wanted all humans to live a life in which we respect one another and respect God.

I hope answered that, and if not. Bugger

[quote=DHomme]I really have to get this off my chest. I hate atheists.

Try not to hate, Christ would never condone it.

I know. But when Jesus said love, he used the word "agape" which basically means "wish for the best for/ dont pray for their untimely end" and I figure Im not doing that. Still Ill try my best

I'll come clean, I was semi kidding. I tend to float between theism, atheism and agnosticism, I just can't ever bring myself to condemn others on the basis of belief and I don't think that's what religion should be about either.

[quote=DHomme]I really have to get this off my chest. I hate atheists.

Try not to hate, Christ would never condone it.

I know. But when Jesus said love, he used the word "agape" which basically means "wish for the best for/ dont pray for their untimely end" and I figure Im not doing that. Still Ill try my best

I'll come clean, I was semi kidding. I tend to float between theism, atheism and agnosticism, I just can't ever bring myself to condemn others on the basis of belief and I don't think that's what religion should be about either.

No it actually shows that I display a little thing called "INDEPENDANT THOUGHT". The bible has so many obscure, irrelevant laws that make no sense, that they should really be dropped. Hell, even parts of the 4 major gospels are bulls***.

The trouble with that, is how can you be sure that if some parts of it are Bullshit, that the rest of it is accurate? Just because you like one section more than another, does not necessarily make that section more true. In the end, ultimate truth is not decided by what people believe.

Exactly

Alright, this may take some time to explain.
All the different writers of all the different books wrote with different purposes/views/ideas and under different circumstances. Some (like Luke) were writing for the oppressors and were trying to shift the blame. Some books (like Leviticus) were written by right wing morons. And a few more (such as revalation) were written by complete nutters.

Now, Though these people may mess up alot of the details and add language/ stories that benefit their ideas. They end up with an overall message that is fundamentally what I believe. That Jesus was the christ of God, and he wanted all humans to live a life in which we respect one another and respect God.

I hope answered that, and if not. Bugger

sorry that sent 4 times, my computers messing up

No it actually shows that I display a little thing called "INDEPENDANT THOUGHT".

I’m sure you do. By claiming that your “independent thought” is superior to the writings in the Bible, the “independent” thinkers that wrote it, and ultimately the teachings of the Christian God you are claiming superiority above them all. This superiority does not exist to a Christian. You are elevating yourself above the Bible, its writers, and ultimately the Christian God.

Its like you shouldnt take Das Kapital to be 100 percent right either. It is one man's interpretation of events. Now, if you have noticed, a violent proletariat revolution didnt seem to hit Germany if I remember correctly, more like the Russian occupiers forced a beaurocracy [sic?] choked dictatorship onto them in the name of Marx.

What does this have to do with your struggle with Christianity and hatred of atheists?

Nothing can be 100 percent right.

This statement is self-refuting. If nothing is 100 percent right then your statement is not 100% right. You have contradicted yourself.

My main argument against Atheism is a first cause argument. For matter to be there must be some force that called matter into existance. This god, or what for all practical purposes amounts to a god, must not be made of matter.

The being that caused matter to come into existance must itself not need a first cause. This might sound absurd, but there is no other explanition because you will either have an infinite repeating "first cause", or you basically say that matter always existed, or created itself. This places matter in the realm of a god like being. In conclusion an atheist can not truly exist because he worships matter as god, or conlcudes that he can't know the truth and is then an agnostic.

It would be nice if everybody could live together without converting eachother, but it wont work. The religons that do well are the ones that convert well. Judiasm is strict about converting and thus it is one of the smaller religons. On the other hand, Christianity is very eager about converting people. You have missionaries and such. If Christians didnt try to convert the religon would die out as slowly people are converted by other religons (or your athiest friends).

From this you can see that if people werent converting eachother, new religons would form and take their place.

My main argument against Atheism is a first cause argument.

Atheism is a statement of a negative – the disbelief in the existence of gods. Your primary argument against atheism must be an assertion that a god exists. The burden of proof is on you as an asserter of a positive.

For matter to be there must be some force that called matter into existance.

What makes you believe there must be a first cause? If matter needs a cause on what basis do you believe gods don’t? Because this leads you to a contradiction (the infinite repeating “first cause”)? This is an insufficient basis for your argument. What property does matter possess that needs a cause that gods don’t possess?

In conclusion an atheist can not truly exist because he worships matter as god, or conlcudes that he can't know the truth and is then an agnostic.

This assumes that everyone has to worship something. What is the basis for this assumption?

I’ve already shown that a statement that “[you] can’t know the truth” is self-refuting.

My main argument against Atheism is a first cause argument.

Atheism is a statement of a negative – the disbelief in the existence of gods. Your primary argument against atheism must be an assertion that a god exists. The burden of proof is on you as an asserter of a positive.

For matter to be there must be some force that called matter into existance.

What makes you believe there must be a first cause? If matter needs a cause on what basis do you believe gods don’t? Because this leads you to a contradiction (the infinite repeating “first cause”)? This is an insufficient basis for your argument. What property does matter possess that needs a cause that gods don’t possess?

In conclusion an atheist can not truly exist because he worships matter as god, or conlcudes that he can't know the truth and is then an agnostic.

This assumes that everyone has to worship something. What is the basis for this assumption?

I’ve already shown that a statement that “[you] can’t know the truth” is self-refuting.

Arrgh! I wanted to say all that!

If I can draw from math. It was proven that any mathematical system is flawed. This was motivated by non-Euclidian geometry which discounts his 6th axiom, if a point is drawn outside a line there is 1 line through that point which is parallel to that line. The discovery was not greeted well in the math community because as the more assumptions or axioms are made the more likly it contradicts itself in a problem.

Extend this proof into general life. We can't prove the existence of god, and even if you disprove it, its on assumptions that may not always hold true. What people try to do is point out those contradictions. My favorite is this

"An old man lived a virtuous life. Always carring about others, he put them above himself. On his deathbed he desides to get baptised. Going to Jerusalem, he is about to baptise himself when a kid on fire is running towards him. He throws the waterat the kid and saves the kids life. However, he dies of a heart attack without getting to baptise himelf."

He can't go to heaven because he wasnt baptised, however if he ignored the plight of the child letting him die then he might of gone to heaven, but he would be selfish.

I just point it out to show that there are ultimty contradictins within christianity. However I can come up with one for atheism.

Since there is no god then if people commit human right violations there is no problem because there is no moral power (god). You may disagree with them, but how can you prove them wrong. How is hurting others bad? Thus, you have a huge problem of law. I am sure there are many others in case people arent satisfied.

If any system is unprovable then you really can't have any certain truth. Religon or lack of is not the root of all the steriotypical problems. Merely it provides an expansion of principles people already follow. People who say we shouldnt play god say so, not beacsue their religon says thats bad, but rather because life is viewed as something special or the possability of designer babies. I ask people to abandon an argument over Atheism because with the different, to quote from the constitution "We hold these truths self evident," undeniable truths in every persons mind it is nearly impossible to create an argument that adresses the issues important to them individually, and thus any discussion will ultimatly be useless.

Atheism is a statement of a negative – the disbelief in the existence of gods. Your primary argument against atheism must be an assertion that a god exists. The burden of proof is on you as an asserter of a positive.

This is an incorrect definition of atheism. In fact, atheism is the basing of one's life solely on rational thought using the ideal that it is not possible to "know" anything without rational thought. Therefore, God is unknowable (dead/nonexistant) as there is no rational argument for it's existance. Basically, if you can't prove something exists, you can't know it exists so there's no reason to believe it exists.


What makes you believe there must be a first cause? If matter needs a cause on what basis do you believe gods don’t? Because this leads you to a contradiction (the infinite repeating “first cause”)? This is an insufficient basis for your argument. What property does matter possess that needs a cause that gods don’t possess?

This is very convoluted as assumptive reasoning. To sa that corporeal matter needs a first cause does not imply that divinity, who's very definition of existance extends beyond the corporeal, also requires an ignition factor.



This assumes that everyone has to worship something. What is the basis for this assumption?

There is strong precedence for human belief and heirarchy as a biological function of existance. Indeed, this extends beyond humans and can be found as a general rule throughout the animal kingdom. While this doesn't prove that "everyone has to worship something" it certainly suggests that one of the underlying forces driving a majority of living entities is the need for social structure. As mankind tends to fancy himself as the top of some sort of pyramid of evolution (although this isn't the case), it is not an out of the question reference to assume that, in order to continue this drive, he has turned outside of himself to find some sort of "cosmic" order.


I’ve already shown that a statement that “[you] can’t know the truth” is self-refuting.

Yes, but the statement "You can't rationally know that which is not rationally knowable" is not and this is the basis of true atheism.

This is an incorrect definition of atheism. In fact, atheism is the basing of one's life solely on rational thought using the ideal that it is not possible to "know" anything without rational thought.

That is a definition of Rationalism, not Atheism.

Atheism does not necessarily mean that the atheist subscribes to rationalistic philosophy; it implies nothing more or less than a belief that gods do not exist.

Atheism is a statement of a negative – the disbelief in the existence of gods. Your primary argument against atheism must be an assertion that a god exists. The burden of proof is on you as an asserter of a positive.

This is an incorrect definition of atheism. In fact, atheism is the basing of one's life solely on rational thought using the ideal that it is not possible to "know" anything without rational thought. Therefore, God is unknowable (dead/nonexistant) as there is no rational argument for it's existance. Basically, if you can't prove something exists, you can't know it exists so there's no reason to believe it exists.

No, what you just defined was closer to agnosticism. By definition atheism is:
A. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
or B. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Agnosticism is:
A. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
or B. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

(Those are from dictionary.com)
(I realize that the given and used meaning of a word may be different, but these are the technical sides to them.)

Atheism is a statement of a negative – the disbelief in the existence of gods. Your primary argument against atheism must be an assertion that a god exists. The burden of proof is on you as an asserter of a positive.

This is an incorrect definition of atheism. In fact, atheism is the basing of one's life solely on rational thought using the ideal that it is not possible to "know" anything without rational thought. Therefore, God is unknowable (dead/nonexistant) as there is no rational argument for it's existance. Basically, if you can't prove something exists, you can't know it exists so there's no reason to believe it exists.

No, what you just defined was closer to agnosticism. By definition atheism is:
A. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
or B. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Agnosticism is:
A. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
or B. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

(Those are from dictionary.com)
(I realize that the given and used meaning of a word may be different, but these are the technical sides to them.)

Atheism is simply the belief that there is no higher power; no designer of the universe, or is synonymous with disbelief in God. There may be some blur with agnosticism in that technically some agnostics do not believe in God, despite not believing He necessarily can't exist either.

Agnosticism is, in its weakest sense, fence sitting. It may indicate that its adherents either believe that an understanding of the objective truth and reality of the universe and God will forever remain out of the comprehension and definitive understanding of mankind; or believe in God(s) but has no idea as to His(Her, Their) nature; or posits the idea that they simply don't know and don't want to make a judgement. The first of which I ascribe to. :)

-dp-

I didn't read the other posts, at least page 2 and on - apologies. I just thought I'd throw in my two cents...

I am an aetheist simpley because I don't believe that there is a god. Nor any omnipotent being, and even a non-being, as it were. I've got myriad reasons but I won't share them. If any of you are bored enough to want to hear them, telegram me. In the meantime, let me say this: I have never lashed out at any religion, I recognize others' rights to belive whatever you want. Many time people have tried to convert me to whatever they are, but I know that that's their choice and no one can convince them otherwise anyway. ;) I am not an aetheist because I am 'lashing out' at any religion whatsoever.

[/twocents]

We are not all fundamentalists.

If true, then you'd have no problem with atheists.. because you'd have no problem with any one who didn't believe as you do.. simple.. but true..

I guess I could of edited my post.. but bah!

The bottom line for all you who you think you know what an atheist is or is not.. I've been one knowingly for about 25 years.. maybe more.. and I assure you.. Unless you know what an atheist really is, thanks for all your help in defining us.. but no thanks.

First of all an atheist is never spelled with a capital letter unless it's at the beginning of a sentence, being an atheist is not a belief.. rather a lack of belief. It's not a title.. rather lack of one.. We don't gather weekly to compare clothing.. there are no songs to learn, verses to memorize and about the only thing we have in common is a desire for separation of church & state. Atheism is not a belief.. it's a lack of one. End of Story!

I think there is a valid point about atheists though. I think a majority of atheists view religous oragnisations as hypocratic. When people talk about god in the organised church model atheists may judge that since you follow the church's beliefs you also follow the church's hypocracy.

As a personal atheist I know that I am much more drawn out to argue with people who express the traditional sense of god, than against more personal beliefs.

Everyone feels attacked sometimes for their beliefs, no matter what they are. The ones who are doing the attacking are the ones who are really questioning their own beliefs or it wouldn't matter to them what anyone else thinks. I am sad for the ones who have to attack on either side because something is very wrong with their own beliefs to do so. Human beings are diverse in every way including religious beliefs and the true believers, whatever it might be, don't have to knock others to reinforce their own "belief".

Stephistan is right. Atheism is not a religion. Anyone who does not believe in God or Gods is an atheist. A Naturalist is an atheist, a Rationalist is an atheist, a Humanist is an atheist, you get the idea.

Oh, cool, atheism isn't a belief. So you have some evidence at all that there is no God, then?

Oh, cool, atheism isn't a belief. So you have some evidence at all that there is no God, then?

There is no need to provide evidence for a negative, if there is no evidence to support the opposing positive.

It would be like providing evidence that aliens aren't invading.


That aside, I don't think anyone claimed that atheism wasn't a belief.

I disagree that Christianity is not based on rational thought. There are many aspects of nature that point to creation from a higher being.

First of all, I can't believe for a second that I am here because of a "big bang". Our world is too intricate to be here because of accident, you must see this. Just look at the atom. Atoms make up everything, but they themselves have several parts: neucleus, electrons, protons, etc. etc. My rational mind can simply not accept that all this detail came by accident. Therefore, it seems perfectly logical to me that there should be a higher being--God. Nothing does not create something.

Darwinism doesn't appeal to logic either. If people evolved from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still evolving today? Why aren't there half-human monkeys walking around? I also can't accept that I came from premordial goo. Even if there was such a substance, how did it know to "evolve" into humans, trees, and water? You see, no logic can explain that.

So since I believe there is a God, what religion do you choose? There are so many that explain God in a different way. Some advocate the God of self, you control your own destiny. Well that obviously hasn't worked for the human race. For example, if Osama bin Laden is a god, then what he did on September 11th cannot be thought of as wrong. Speaking of, if everyone is a god, then there is no wrong, everyone is right. Of course we all know that isn't true. That's why there are justice systems.

Others proclaim a pantheon of gods. My rational mind can't accept this either. How can there be all these gods, competing for my devotion? How can I possibly please them all, follow every law they hold? I can't. So this has led me to believe that there must be one god.

So why Chrisitianity? Mainly because the Christian God has everything I need. No one can deny that humans need love. That's why we have dating, friendships, teen magazines--everyone is looking for love and acceptance. With God, I have unconditional love and forgiveness for my wrongs. I have a savior--Jesus--who died for me to erase my sins because He loves me, not because He wanted to hold a sword over my head. That appeals not only to my rational mind, but to my heart.

Finally, let me add that some people try to convert others because they want to let people share the same joy that they have experienced. However, I respect the fact that people can choose what they want to believe, and I also concede that some Christians take evangalism to the extreme.

I disagree that Christianity is not based on rational thought. There are many aspects of nature that point to creation from a higher being.

Only from a certain perspective. There are many aspects of nature that contradict this philosophy.

First of all, I can't believe for a second that I am here because of a "big bang". Our world is too intricate to be here because of accident, you must see this.

Don't lay on the subjective assertions too thickly, will you? Complexity does not indicate a higher purpose.

Just look at the atom. Atoms make up everything, but they themselves have several parts: neucleus, electrons, protons, etc. etc. My rational mind can simply not accept that all this detail came by accident. Therefore, it seems perfectly logical to me that there should be a higher being--God. Nothing does not create something.

I cannot understand the mindset that demands that all complexity must have some kind of intelligent guidance. Snowflakes, for example, are complex and orderly in structure, yet they are produced by natural, physical processes.

There is nothing logical about the insistance that the universe requires a god to create it; where then, did God come from, and by what mechanism did he create the universe, and what caused the creation of that mechanism? If God can come from nothing, there is no reason why the universe cannot.

Darwinism doesn't appeal to logic either. If people evolved from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still evolving today?

They are.

Why aren't there half-human monkeys walking around?

If you choose to ignore chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang-utans, then consider that these 'half-human monkeys' would have been competing with homo-sapiens for the same resources and space. They don't exist, because the more successful humans drove them to extinction. Survival of the fittest.

I also can't accept that I came from premordial goo. Even if there was such a substance, how did it know to "evolve" into humans, trees, and water? You see, no logic can explain that.

This appears to be based on the assumption that humans and trees were the intended result of evolution. It assumes that the present form of life is a given. Humans and trees are just one possible outcome of the evolutionary process, and the only reason that we are here to discuss it is because we are the result of evolution, and not one of the trillions of other possibilities.

Others proclaim a pantheon of gods. My rational mind can't accept this either. How can there be all these gods, competing for my devotion? How can I possibly please them all, follow every law they hold? I can't. So this has led me to believe that there must be one god.

I don't see what your 'rational' mind has got to do with any of this. Just because the idea of many gods is not appealing to you personally, does not make it any less logical than the existance of one god. This is another subjective assertion, and is not based on any kind of objective reason or logic.

So why Chrisitianity? Mainly because the Christian God has everything I need. No one can deny that humans need love. That's why we have dating, friendships, teen magazines--everyone is looking for love and acceptance. With God, I have unconditional love and forgiveness for my wrongs. I have a savior--Jesus--who died for me to erase my sins because He loves me, not because He wanted to hold a sword over my head. That appeals not only to my rational mind, but to my heart.

Just because you like the idea of something, does not make it true. Likewise, because something does not appeal to you, does not make it false. The ultimate truth of the universe is not determined by your personal preferences, or mine. There is no reason to believe that the cosmos is specifically engineered for our convenience.

Actually, I am a marxist
Interesting....And you are still a fan of "the opiate of the masses"?
regardless...I'm a pretty hardcore capitalist, and I still wouldn't call Marx insignificant (I'm also a half-Psychology major, and I WOULD call Freud insignificant) but both are stereotypes associated with Atheists, and many of us (such as myself) follow neither
Darwin is the other big one, but I bet a lot more (still not all, but more) Atheists follow him
a lot more of you religious folks too...

Is the "opiate of the masses" quote the only one by marx that people know? Seriously, name me three others.

I guess im anti-atheism because, of the ones I know, whenever an atheist found out I was a Christian, theyve either insulted me or tried to convert me.

Also, there are sites like "the anti bible" on the internet. Why do they only attack christians and jews. Its never buddhism or hinduism. Which leads me to believe that in many teenagers its meerly a petty attempt to rebel against what they see as conformity.
sorry to disappoint you but the hindu gods are less believable than the abrahamic ones. and for buddhism, most sects don't view buddha as a god. eastern religion I associate with the most because they teach to just lead a good life. no dogmas, no witch burnings.

Oh, cool, atheism isn't a belief. So you have some evidence at all that there is no God, then?

Oh how I love it when someone says that. Why? Because I can easily turn that arguement around by saying... do you have any proof that he DOES exist? And go ahead and try the "because the bible says so" line with me. Ill really be all happy then.

Oh, cool, atheism isn't a belief. So you have some evidence at all that there is no God, then?

I will only suggest what I have seen.. and it's my opinion that there is a heck of a lot more evidence to support atheism.. then a god.. but believe what ever gets you through, I certainly wouldn't want to deny you that...

It is equally ignorant to say that all Athiests consider Christians to be racist...ETC..

Let's see...

I dislike
-Christianity
-Islam
-Judaism
-Hinduism
-any organized religion that attempts to suppress one's freedom

I don't hate the people, just the the "values" the religion teaches. Buddhism isn't all that bad... but I haven't researched it completely so I only know about the good parts (suffering is caused by desire, no creator gods, tolerance of other religions as long as their based on peace and love, etc.)

That's why I became a Satanist.

There is no need to provide evidence for a negative, if there is no evidence to support the opposing positive.

Actually, yes there is. The lack of evidence for a rival theory doesn't automatically ensure your own is correct.

It would be like providing evidence that aliens aren't invading.

Fortunately, this can be done. You can look into the sky, ask everyone with a telescope or particularly large dish if anything dodgy's going on up there, check to see if there's any unusual electromagnetic activity, check radar and so on. If all came up blank, or any discrepancies in data could be explained, then we've just garnered a wealth of evidence that shows aliens quite probably aren't invading.

Sure, it's possible that the aliens could have ways to hide from all of the technology we could conceivably come up with, but then we'd never know about it; and thus could not react or truly prepare for those set of circumstances - any notion that we were getting invaded would by the definition I have laid down be entirely coincidental (ie., the reason for the notion can't possibly be based on empirical evidence,) and since it would be ridiculously unjustifiable it would essentially be ignored. And rightly so.

However, believing that either way absolutely has to be the case is pointless, and incorrect, since it's possible the aliens could subvert all of our technology, however unlikely or impossible to know it ever would be. Since we'd never know, though, then so what? It's a rather academic question, one which can never be answered.

Another example of this is the idea that all our perceptions are wrong and can never in the slightest bit be trusted. If it is the case then we'd never know, so it's pointless (moreover, impossible,) to prepare for it happening. It isn't necessarily impossible though.

This is agnosticism.

That aside, I don't think anyone claimed that atheism wasn't a belief.

Not quite:

First of all an atheist is never spelled with a capital letter unless it's at the beginning of a sentence, being an atheist is not a belief.. rather a lack of belief.

Oh, cool, atheism isn't a belief. So you have some evidence at all that there is no God, then?

Oh how I love it when someone says that. Why? Because I can easily turn that arguement around by saying... do you have any proof that he DOES exist?

Awesome, turn it around. I'd then point out that since there's blatantly no evidence either way, it's blatantly ridiculous to assume anything, and that both theism and atheism are beliefs and should be cast aside until we can actually gather data.

I guess I could of edited my post.. but bah!

The bottom line for all you who you think you know what an atheist is or is not.. I've been one knowingly for about 25 years.. maybe more.. and I assure you.. Unless you know what an atheist really is, thanks for all your help in defining us.. but no thanks.

First of all an atheist is never spelled with a capital letter unless it's at the beginning of a sentence, being an atheist is not a belief.. rather a lack of belief. It's not a title.. rather lack of one.. We don't gather weekly to compare clothing.. there are no songs to learn, verses to memorize and about the only thing we have in common is a desire for separation of church & state. Atheism is not a belief.. it's a lack of one. End of Story!


I think it depends, there are two types of atheist in my view: One would argue that "I do not believe that God exists" the other "I believe that God does not exist".

The first statement is a negative pure and simple and is not a belief, but rather than the persons sees no evidence to conclude that God exists and so does not.

The second one is a positive assertion concerning a negative, a conclusion drawn from analysis and logic that God does not exist. Merely because the person concludes upon a negative does not mean that the processes and beliefs that brought them to that point are also negative.

1 has anybody read my previous posts.

2. With regard to creation theories there is vary important point. Life needs a lot of complex things for it to survive. Reasonable temperature, good ecosystem, oxygen ect. Since you need those for life, when life like humans observe their world no matter what the creation theory is, it must be there for life. There are millions of planets that dont have those conditions. We are only on the planet where everything seems right and any other life would be also. we have the ultimate bias.

As an agnostic Daoist, I have nothing but respect for good, intellectually rigourous Christians, of whom there are plenty. It's my belief in the fundamental importance of spirituality, and my disdain for those who besmirch its name with their idiotic and hatred-filled agendas, that leads me to attack the Creationists, the evangelists, the religious authoritarians, the anti-secularists and their kind. Evangelical atheists I have equally little respect for.

2. With regard to creation theories there is vary important point. Life needs a lot of complex things for it to survive. Reasonable temperature, good ecosystem, oxygen ect. Since you need those for life, when life like humans observe their world no matter what the creation theory is, it must be there for life.

Why? The fact that there are billions of planets which don't support life would seem to indicate that the fact this one can is pure chance; the other planets can't support life and so life hasn't sprung up on any of them. This one can, and so it does.

If you saw a billion watches set to random times, and a few of them told the right time, then the fact that a few of them told the right time wouldn't be outside the realms of chance and they don't need to have purposefully been set to the right time at all. Nor does this Earth have to have been created purely for the benefit of life.

Reasonable temperature, good ecosystem, oxygen ect.

And, um, saying 'before you have life you need a good ecosystem' is like saying 'before you can invent athletics, you need the Olympic Commisson.'

The first life didn't need oxygen - it excreted it. Oxygen-consuming organisms didn't develop until the first organisms had filled the atmosphere with the stuff. Normally, you'll never find oxygen loose in a planet's atmosphere because it's so reactive - if left alone it'll just be absorbed into the rocks.

If you saw a billion watches set to random times, and a few of them told the right time, then the fact that a few of them told the right time wouldn't be outside the realms of chance and they don't need to have purposefully been set to the right time at all. Nor does this Earth have to have been created purely for the benefit of life.

Yes, but we are also on the watch with the right time. We look around and wonder why its the right time. However, if it was the wrong time we couldnt observe it. Its a loop of cause and effect.

The first life didn't need oxygen - it excreted it. Oxygen-consuming organisms didn't develop until the first organisms had filled the atmosphere with the stuff. Normally, you'll never find oxygen loose in a planet's atmosphere because it's so reactive - if left alone it'll just be absorbed into the rocks.
I was wrong there, but it doesnt affect the argument.

The first life didn't need oxygen - it excreted it. Oxygen-consuming organisms didn't develop until the first organisms had filled the atmosphere with the stuff. Normally, you'll never find oxygen loose in a planet's atmosphere because it's so reactive - if left alone it'll just be absorbed into the rocks.
I was wrong there, but it doesnt affect the argument.

erm, yes it really does. it's not that our planet just happened to be perfectly suited for our form of life, it's that our form of life evolved because of the conditions that were present. you're looking at things backwards.

Wow, I made a successful topic.

you've got a long way to go before its a successful topic :)

If you saw a billion watches set to random times, and a few of them told the right time, then the fact that a few of them told the right time wouldn't be outside the realms of chance and they don't need to have purposefully been set to the right time at all. Nor does this Earth have to have been created purely for the benefit of life.

Yes, but we are also on the watch with the right time.

Well we couldn't well be on the watches with the wrong time, could we?

We look around and wonder why its the right time.

No, not really. Given the many, many billions of planets in just the known universe, and the billions of years that have passed, if there are any more planets which can't, haven't or don't support life I'd be extremely surprised. In time we may well be able to observe those others that can, too - in about 20 years or so - or even find evidence of extinct life much closer to home.

I have no idea what you were trying to suggest about cause and effect.

erm, yes it really does. it's not that our planet just happened to be perfectly suited for our form of life, it's that our form of life evolved because of the conditions that were present. you're looking at things backwards.

even if you take into account the changes made by life there are huge chances that just happen to be there. We are living far enough away from the sun for liquid water. We have Jupiter which absorbs or deflects the countless comets or asteroids that would hit the planet. We have a volcanic core. The iron in the core creats the magnetic field that helps deflect space radiation. The list is endless. While it also is true that life severaly changed the surface of the earth. I am talking about intelligent life, which is the back. Unless you tell me that micro-organisms are concous, the conditions for evolution to progress up to a level similar to ours, would require a good deal of chance.

erm, yes it really does. it's not that our planet just happened to be perfectly suited for our form of life, it's that our form of life evolved because of the conditions that were present. you're looking at things backwards.

even if you take into account the changes made by life there are huge chances that just happen to be there. We are living far enough away from the sun for liquid water. We have Jupiter which absorbs or deflects the countless comets or asteroids that would hit the planet. We have a volcanic core. The iron in the core creats the magnetic field that helps deflect space radiation. The list is endless. While it also is true that life severaly changed the surface of the earth. I am talking about intelligent life, which is the back. Unless you tell me that micro-organisms are concous, the conditions for evolution to progress up to a level similar to ours, would require a good deal of chance.

for life to exist in its present form a great many things had to happen as they did, yes. but life could exist in an almost infinite number of ways; only our particular form of life needs atmosphere, water, and a certain range of radiation and temperature. we need those things because that is what is available here and thus that's how we evolved. life on other planets wouldn't need those things because they aren't available; the life would evolve differently and have different needs.

you don't seem to understand that the environment came first, and we developed in accordance with it. if the environment had been different then we would be different. that doesn't mean that life wouldn't exist, simply that it wouldn't in its present form.

In response to Kahrstein, I think we are arguing a similar point. What I am saying is that when many people aregue the existence of god they point to the world and its wonders. We are on a lucky planet out of billions to have the conditions. If you think of it generally though. For life to exist you need stable conditions, but people still point to the wonders of nature as if they dont need to be there. However, they are needed and so its no suprise they are there. You are saying there is a huge amount of chance that one planet gets the right conditions, I am saying that those right conditions are needed for us to observe them.

Okay Bottle I'll abandon that argument. Instead lets look at the dynamics of religon. For a religon to grow it needs to convert. Since it converted people from other religons, then those die out or repeat the process. So when DHomme complained about annoying atheists, if they didnt exist then atheism would die out and be replaced by somethign else. As you can see its hopeless, so unfortunaly you will have people trying to convert eachother no matter what happens.

Okay Bottle I'll abandon that argument. Instead lets look at the dynamics of religon. For a religon to grow it needs to convert. Since it converted people from other religons, then those die out or repeat the process. So when DHomme complained about annoying atheists, if they didnt exist then atheism would die out and be replaced by somethign else. As you can see its hopeless, so unfortunaly you will have people trying to convert eachother no matter what happens.

um, i wasn't "converted" to agnosticism, i arrived at it as the logical conclusion of my education and experiences. many people reach beliefs through their own thought rather than just because somebody else told them too.

erm, yes it really does. it's not that our planet just happened to be perfectly suited for our form of life, it's that our form of life evolved because of the conditions that were present. you're looking at things backwards.

even if you take into account the changes made by life there are huge chances that just happen to be there. We are living far enough away from the sun for liquid water. We have Jupiter which absorbs or deflects the countless comets or asteroids that would hit the planet. We have a volcanic core. The iron in the core creats the magnetic field that helps deflect space radiation. The list is endless.

And despite all these there have been numerous mass extinctions, (every 26 million years or so, with incredibly large mass extinctions happening about six times in Earth's history) showing that Earth isn't exactly perfect. Oh, and incidentally http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3588721.stm .

While it also is true that life severaly changed the surface of the earth. I am talking about intelligent life, which is the back. Unless you tell me that micro-organisms are concous, the conditions for evolution to progress up to a level similar to ours, would require a good deal of chance.

Evolution is not, nor was it ever proposed to be, chance, even if we're to assume mutation is. Ever hear of natural selection? Besides, your argument smacks of the idea that we were a distant point that evolution was aiming at. Evolution doesn't aim, but traits within populations determine their ability to survive their respective environments.

And to build on that the reason why theey are annoying is because everyone has diferent basicl beliefs. "We hold these truths to be self evident" was a comprimise on the basic beliefs of the country. Since everyone believes different things to be undeniably true, when someone points out things that you dont believe are undeniably true, their argument is a pile of rubbish. If even they do mention things you are certain are true, they wont include everything. Thus, you ask yourself how can this person argue for this when their argument is soo flawed. When they continue, wondering how you as the listener dont get the obvious, both people get very annoyed.

um, i wasn't "converted" to agnosticism, i arrived at it as the logical conclusion of my education and experiences. many people reach beliefs through their own thought rather than just because somebody else told them too.
and how can you account for the fact that a huge majority of people are in religons they didnt start?

Kahrstein, why is it when I walk outside that the air isnt sulphuric acid and the ground actually exists instead of a gas?

um, i wasn't "converted" to agnosticism, i arrived at it as the logical conclusion of my education and experiences. many people reach beliefs through their own thought rather than just because somebody else told them too.
and how can you account for the fact that a huge majority of people are in religons they didnt start?

most people just go with the religion they were born into. some people are more creative or choose to examine their beliefs more closely. some people are simply smarter than others. people aren't all equal in ability, so why would they be equal in behavior? what's your point? that some people are converted and some people aren't? that seems pretty obvious.

There is no need to provide evidence for a negative, if there is no evidence to support the opposing positive.

Actually, yes there is. The lack of evidence for a rival theory doesn't automatically ensure your own is correct.

That is not what I am saying. I am not saying that no evidence for theory A indicates the correctness of theory B. 'God Exists' and 'God doesn't exist' are not two theories attempting to explain the same phenomenon. The sole purpose of the theory 'God doesn't exist' is the assertion that the theory 'God Exists' is incorrect. Since there is no evidence that God exists, there is no reason to believe that this theory is correct. Since the other theory is not an alternative explanation of the same phenomenon, but simply the negative to the positive that 'God Exists' is trying to prove, it is automatically strengthened by the lack of evidence for God's existence.

This can't really be turned around, and taken from the opposite perspective, (no evidence for God's lack of existence), because 'God doesn't exist' is not a theory in and of itself, but merely the negative of a pre-established theory. The theory 'there is no god' did not come before the theory 'god exists' because the theory 'god exists' is the one trying to prove the existence of something. Before someone came up with the idea that god exists, people didn't think about it.

Since there is no evidence that God exists, the theory can not have been deduced from evidence, and therefore appears to be simply a construct of the human mind.

Bah, I'm talking in circles, and failing to find the words I need, but I understand what I mean, even if nobody else does, and it helps my sanity no end.

It would be like providing evidence that aliens aren't invading.

Fortunately, this can be done. You can look into the sky, ask everyone with a telescope or particularly large dish if anything dodgy's going on up there, check to see if there's any unusual electromagnetic activity, check radar and so on. If all came up blank, or any discrepancies in data could be explained, then we've just garnered a wealth of evidence that shows aliens quite probably aren't invading.

You shoot your previous argument to bits with that; you are now saying that lack of evidence for the theory 'Aliens are invading' is evidence for the theory 'aliens aren't invading'.

This is my point entirely. You can only prove that there is no evidence that aliens are invading, not that there is evidence that they aren't invading. By this same token, the lack of evidence for the existence of god, would prove that he does not exist. You can look in the sky, use any methed of detection you like, but you won't see god sitting up there on a cloud smoking a reefer with Bob Marley.

There is no point trying to reason with someone who believes faith is a valid form of acquiring knowledge. Faith represents the renunciation of reason as a means of dealing with humans. Religionists say, explicitly, that it is okay to declare certain topics off-limits to reason.

Once this is done, anything and everything goes. There is no basis for declaring one party's faith valid and another party's faith invalid. Thus, a theist’s decision to believe in god and the 19 hijackers’ decision to murder 3000 Americans are equally valid.

Most religions’ morality is blatantly evil. A few examples: Charity - the giving of the undeserved - is the opposite of justice and is therefore unjust. Mercy is the sin of forgiving sins; it is a declaration that those who choose to be evil will not be held accountable for their actions; it is the declaration that the evil will be treated the same as the good. (Actually, it is worse than that. In Christian mythology, the ideal man was killed for the sake of the sinners). Tolerance is always advocated as an excuse for the intolerable.

I see nothing benevolent about discarding reason, endorsing injustice and punishing the good for the sake of the evil. I see nothing compassionate in a philosophy that demands obedience to the arbitrary whims of an omnipotent being under penalty of eternal torture.

Faith and force are the destroyers of the modern world. Today's Islamic terrorists are proving that point horrifically. All religionists are endorsing the terrorist’s fundamental premise: the validity of faith.

most people just go with the religion they were born into. some people are more creative or choose to examine their beliefs more closely. some people are simply smarter than others. people aren't all equal in ability, so why would they be equal in behavior? what's your point? that some people are converted and some people aren't? that seems pretty obvious.
Yes, but that is not all. The religons that try to convert have an extra edge. Since the people who examine their religon most likly will choose the one they want you can't do anything about that. Everyone else can either be converted or their parents converted.

Start with 100 people. Every year each couple has a kid, and the kids follow their parents. At the start 20 are in religon A The rest religon B. But religon A converts 5 people also.
1. 20 80 100
2. 35 115 150
3. 57 168 225
4. 90 247 337


At the start it was a 20%. Now, its 26.7% from 1/5 to 1/4. Continued hundreds of times and soon the world swtiches to religon A.

most people just go with the religion they were born into. some people are more creative or choose to examine their beliefs more closely. some people are simply smarter than others. people aren't all equal in ability, so why would they be equal in behavior? what's your point? that some people are converted and some people aren't? that seems pretty obvious.
Yes, but that is not all. The religons that try to convert have an extra edge. Since the people who examine their religon most likly will chose the one they want you can't do anything about that. Everyone else can either be converted or their parents converted.

Start with 100 people. Every year each couple has a kid, and the kids follow their parents. At the start 20 are in religon A The rest religon B. But religon A converts 5 people also.
1. 20 80 100
2. 35 115 150
3. 57 168 225
4. 90 247 337


At the start it was a 20%. Now, its 26.7% from 1/5 to 1/4. Continued hundreds of times and soon the world swtiches to religon A.

no, 100% of people will never believe one thing. because there will always be people (probably a minority) who do what i did and think for themselves. yes, a religion that focuses on obtaining converts will grow larger...what's your point? that seems pretty basic, so what are you saying that means about religion? any philosophy or system that puts more energy into its own growth will expand more than a less growth-oriented one. so religion, like any other sort of system, can grow.

And to build on that the reason why theey are annoying is because everyone has diferent basicl beliefs. "We hold these truths to be self evident" was a comprimise on the basic beliefs of the country. Since everyone believes different things to be undeniably true, when someone points out things that you dont believe are undeniably true, their argument is a pile of rubbish. If even they do mention things you are certain are true, they wont include everything. Thus, you ask yourself how can this person argue for this when their argument is soo flawed. When they continue, wondering how you as the listener dont get the obvious, both people get very annoyed.

Clearly the founding fathers, Jefferson Franklin etc. did believe in a common human nature incorporating natural law.

so the majority of the world will be people who try to convert. Those annoying atheists or annoying christians or those annoying -fill in the blank-.

Suppose for the sake of argument that faith were like a set of eyeglasses.
One could try them out of curiousity and exclaim: "Hey! I can see things differently! Try these out, people!"
But others could reply "I am used to seeing what i see as I see it. You canno convince me that your version of sight is superior to mine. You are using artificial means to change your basic humanness, becoming dependant on san external crutch. How dare you insult my independence?"

And to build on that the reason why theey are annoying is because everyone has diferent basicl beliefs. "We hold these truths to be self evident" was a comprimise on the basic beliefs of the country. Since everyone believes different things to be undeniably true, when someone points out things that you dont believe are undeniably true, their argument is a pile of rubbish. If even they do mention things you are certain are true, they wont include everything. Thus, you ask yourself how can this person argue for this when their argument is soo flawed. When they continue, wondering how you as the listener dont get the obvious, both people get very annoyed.

Clearly the founding fathers, Jefferson Franklin etc. did believe in a common human nature incorporating natural law.
Yes, but that doesnt mean there arent many divisions. Most people agree murder is a crime, most peole argue over whether the death penelty is an appropriate punishment.

You know, I think whereever you go you will find that people will always disagree about something. Whether it be their favorite food, color, fingernail polish, favorite internet service, favorite flower, or religon and etc etc, People will always think that whatever they do and believe is the right thing. Everyone thinks this. If they didn't, everyone would believe the exact same thing and wouldn't disagree about anything. But, thats not how it is. So ends my discussion about discussions.

so the majority of the world will be people who try to convert. Those annoying atheists or annoying christians or those annoying -fill in the blank-.

maybe, at least until we educate enough people.

That is not what I am saying. I am not saying that no evidence for theory A indicates the correctness of theory B. 'God Exists' and 'God doesn't exist' are not two theories attempting to explain the same phenomenon. The sole purpose of the theory 'God doesn't exist' is the assertion that the theory 'God Exists' is incorrect. Since there is no evidence that God exists, there is no reason to believe that this theory is correct. Since the other theory is not an alternative explanation of the same phenomenon, but simply the negative to the positive

That's called an alternate explanation of the same phenomenon, that of reality, "assertion" and "explanation" are rather the same in this context. I fail to see how the fact that they are exactly opposed or that one was raised to debunk the other is in any way relevent, other than if one is shown to be very likely, accordingly the other's very probably - but not necessarily - going to be shown to be unlikely. Since there's no evidence either way belief about either would seem to be pointless. The problem with the "God exists" model is that it can easily propose exactly the same thing as the "God doesn't exist" model - that there will never be any evidence for God, and thus the scientific method is rendered useless in this matter. It will also mean that the existence of God is a completely and utterly pointless question to ask - my argument is an extremely pedantic contention.

that 'God Exists' is trying to prove, it is automatically strengthened by the lack of evidence for God's existence.

By the same argument I could posit that since there's no evidence for the lack of a God the idea of a God is automatically strengthened. The problem with this being, of course, that there's never going to be any evidence either way.

This can't really be turned around, and taken from the opposite perspective, (no evidence for God's lack of existence), because 'God doesn't exist' is not a theory in and of itself, but merely the negative of a pre-established theory.

The fact that it was created purely to debunk a rival idea (you can refer to the "God exists" model by whatever term you like; "theory", "idea" "concept" "assertion", "negative", it all means essentially the same thing,) doesn't matter one jot, it requires evidence in much the same way as the other theory.

Since there is no evidence that God exists, the theory can not have been deduced from evidence, and therefore appears to be simply a construct of the human mind.

Quite probably, and the same goes for the belief in there being no God.

It would be like providing evidence that aliens aren't invading.

Fortunately, this can be done. You can look into the sky, ask everyone with a telescope or particularly large dish if anything dodgy's going on up there, check to see if there's any unusual electromagnetic activity, check radar and so on. If all came up blank, or any discrepancies in data could be explained, then we've just garnered a wealth of evidence that shows aliens quite probably aren't invading.

You shoot your previous argument to bits with that; you are now saying that lack of evidence for the theory 'Aliens are invading' is evidence for the theory 'aliens aren't invading'.

Incorrect. The main difference between this allegory and the God model is that God, by His proposed nature, could possibly never be perceived by humans - hence the fact that I followed the paragraph you're quoting with two other, appropriate allegories, one with the assumption that we couldn't ever perceive the aliens, and the other that our perceptions are all completely untrustworthy. Like the God model they may well be true, but they're also unprovable; academic points of uncertainty only and completely useless to mankind. None of these arguments could ever have any evidence raised for or against them, and similarly they will never have any effect on mankind - true or not - since they can't ever be perceived. And thus all of these arguments should be treated as if they are untrue. This does not automatically make them impossible, nor does it mean we should believe they are necessarily wrong.

To clarify on the pargraph you quoted: It is unlikely that aliens could work out a way to circumvent all of our methods of perceiving them. If we assume they can't, (as I did in the paragraph you quoted,) and that we can perceive them, then the fact that the empirical evidence indicates there is nothing in the sky would lend one to think that there are no aliens, but only if that assumption is true. It is not the lack of data for the rival theory that makes the idea aliens aren't attacking stronger, but the fact that the model suggesting aliens aren't attacking makes some predictions (we wouldn't be able to pick them up on radar, we wouldn't be able to see them, we wouldn't be able to detect electromagnetic interference from them,) and these predictions are proven correct.

The same can not be true of the existance of God because it can simply be predicted that we'd never have empirical evidence of the matter due to God's all powerful nature. If it is the case, though, then God's a fairly useless concept to us, and should be ignored.

Lord, this post is getting too long. So, Zervok: no.

Actually, I am a marxist
Interesting....And you are still a fan of "the opiate of the masses"?
regardless...I'm a pretty hardcore capitalist, and I still wouldn't call Marx insignificant (I'm also a half-Psychology major, and I WOULD call Freud insignificant) but both are stereotypes associated with Atheists, and many of us (such as myself) follow neither
Darwin is the other big one, but I bet a lot more (still not all, but more) Atheists follow him
a lot more of you religious folks too...

Is the "opiate of the masses" quote the only one by marx that people know? Seriously, name me three others.

I guess im anti-atheism because, of the ones I know, whenever an atheist found out I was a Christian, theyve either insulted me or tried to convert me.

Also, there are sites like "the anti bible" on the internet. Why do they only attack christians and jews. Its never buddhism or hinduism. Which leads me to believe that in many teenagers its meerly a petty attempt to rebel against what they see as conformity.
1. From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.
2. Workers of the World, Unite.
3. I am not a Marxist
4. Last words are for fools who haven't said enough

I only mentioned the opiate of the masses before because that was the only one which was relevant, since Marx wasn't so much a fan of religion, and you're here insulting anyone who isn't religious.

...since Marx wasn't so much a fan of religion, and you're here insulting anyone who isn't religious.

actually, Marx said many positive things about religion. he saw religion as the unfortunate consequence of society's failure to provide for the social and emotional needs of the people, and since society failed them he didn't blame people for turning to religion. in his system religion would (theoretically) be unnecessary because those needs would be answered, but he wasn't interested in destroying religion simply for its own sake.

the full quote reads as follows:

"The struggle against religion is…a struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of [people], is a demand for their real happiness…"

um, i wasn't "converted" to agnosticism, i arrived at it as the logical conclusion of my education and experiences. many people reach beliefs through their own thought rather than just because somebody else told them too.
and how can you account for the fact that a huge majority of people are in religons they didnt start?

Because in a lot of times and places *not* adhering to the local relegion could be exceedingly bad for your health ...

This is the first time I've ever entered an Athiesm/Xtianity online debate thread - however as this has been about the most civilised i can recall reading (kudos to both sides :) ) I'll stick in my oar a bit.

I'm coming to this as a 'second generation' athiest, although I very specificaly wasn't raised as such. However having access to lots of information about *many* different world faiths pretty much put the kybosh on my developing 'faith' in any of them. Although there's plenty of wisdom to be found in the Bible/Koran/Sufi texts/Taoist writings ... as a child I thought that *they can't all be right*. And while I have enourmous respect for sincere adherents of differing relegions they all insist that thier way is the *right* way and all the others are in error to a greater or lesser extent.

So ... my question is to Christians who find athiesm an odd concept to get thier heads wrapped around - why aren't you a follower of Vishnu / Allah / Zorraster / Zeus ?

It's possibly pretty much the same reason why a few of us are athiests.
I'd welome counter points :)

I've said this before (like that's going to stop me :) ) but Marxism shares many of the characteristics of a religion. It has:

* a belief in a structured past and an ordained future (Historical Inevitability)
* a chosen people (the Proletariat)
* a promised land or mode of existence (international socialism following the foretold withering away of the State)

I have no problems with the core moralities of Marxism, or with the core moralities of Christianity for that matter. But I don't think it's a good idea to run a country on faith.

On the question of atheism, and whether or not it's a belief, personally I don't like the label. There isn't a word to specifically describe people who don't believe in witches, or trolls, or fairies at the bottom of the garden; why do we need one for people who don't believe in one or more gods? I'd describe myself as "not superstitious", or maybe as a skeptic. If anyone could offer me any evidence, I'm prepared to change my opinion -- but at the moment I can't see the practical difference between an invisible, intangible, unknowable god, and no god at all.

let us assume that god, if he exists, does not interfere in the world.

if we allowed god to interfere in the world: raise the death, transform things, etc ... then our nice world would become indeterministic. in a deterministic world, the state of the world at one time causes the state of the world at any other time. if we allowed god to interfere, this would no longer be the case as a world in which a divine intervention took place differs from a world in which it did not take place. And if we allowed the world to be indeterministic, you might transform into a purple whale the next second.

this assumption leads to the next conclusion:

god, existing or not existing, is of no importance for us. we cannot interact with god and therefore he does not influence us one bit.
Therefore there is no sane reason to spend time believing in a god and worshipping him.

This also leads to the conclusion that humans invented god. Not letting god interfere in the world also means that god has never been able to show himself to a human or to let a human know there is a god.

I think most people will agree that our ancestors once invented gods to explain things like lightning, life, earthquakes, ... explaining these things with gods made them less frightning: an unknown world is more frightning than a known world. but it also gave them a way to control these forces: do this ritual and you will be fertile.

{'god(s) exists'} is a theory
Now let's think what any sane person would say about a theory that is:

-created to explain things that are explained by better theories.
-created without any empirical support and without any theoretical support.
-cannot be proven nor disproven.
-does not explain anything.
-does not have any consequences. (both assuming we do not let god interefere in the world, which is accepted by most people today i think)
-does not have any use.

A theory like this get's thrown in the bin by philosophers, just like the theory that there is a purple whale with black mushrooms on his back in his seacastle that is in another universe (in fact this theory is equivalent to the one that says 'god exists'.

Now we only have to wait until the rest of the world realises this and dumps the theory.

I have a thought, and I've used this quote often in explaining why I am an atheist.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I merely believe in one fewer god than you. When you can explain why you dismiss all other gods, then you will know why I dismiss yours."

-- Stephen Roberts

There is no need to provide evidence for a negative, if there is no evidence to support the opposing positive.

Actually, yes there is. The lack of evidence for a rival theory doesn't automatically ensure your own is correct.


Actually, no there isn't.
Burden of Proof lies on someone who is trying to prove something, not someone who is trying to disprove something
If you are prosecuting Nomzonia for murder, you have to prove that he did commit the crime. He can just sit back and laugh at you and provide no help to his defense. If you can't provide proof, then under the law, he doesn't go to jail. (Note, I'm talking US law, I don't know what other laws say, but this isn't just in criminal trials- the same format is used for debates and such)
However, it never hurts to help your case

...since Marx wasn't so much a fan of religion, and you're here insulting anyone who isn't religious.
actually, Marx said many positive things about religion. he saw religion as the unfortunate consequence of society's failure to provide for the social and emotional needs of the people, and since society failed them he didn't blame people for turning to religion. in his system religion would (theoretically) be unnecessary because those needs would be answered, but he wasn't interested in destroying religion simply for its own sake.
That doesn't sound at all like something positive about religion.
Perhaps he was against religion, but not necessarily the religious. So if DHomme is a Christian just because he needs something to believe in until his society becomes Marxist, then I suppose it's acceptable for him to be both...

But Karl Marx also said all this (I looked these up online, don't know how direct the quotes are):
1. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
2. Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.

3. We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time's carcass.

I have a thought, and I've used this quote often in explaining why I am an atheist.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I merely believe in one fewer god than you. When you can explain why you dismiss all other gods, then you will know why I dismiss yours."

-- Stephen Roberts

oooooo good quote! who is stephen roberts and why haven't i heard his quote before? *trying to convince myself that i can memorize it without jotting it down somewhere*

Yeah, I like that quote to, Im definatly going to use it.

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it. "

Any body know who said this one?






John Adams, 2nd president of the U.S.

...I WOULD call Freud insignificant...
Have you read "Civilisation and Its Discontents"?

...I WOULD call Freud insignificant...
Have you read "Civilisation and Its Discontents"?
no, I have to admit I haven't, but from reading a bit about it just now, it doesn't sound like anything I would call significant- and the bits I read were from people who liked it. Freud did have a few good ideas...too bad he never cared to test them out.

...I WOULD call Freud insignificant...
Have you read "Civilisation and Its Discontents"?
no, I have to admit I haven't, but from reading a bit about it just now, it doesn't sound like anything I would call significant- and the bits I read were from people who liked it. Freud did have a few good ideas...too bad he never cared to test them out.
I suggest you read it. It's quite different from the soporiphic "Interpretation of Dreams".

"...[T]he price we pay for our advance in civilisation is a loss of happiness through the heightening of the sense of guilt."

you know what's funny? right now, i'm not too pleased with members of either group (atheists and christians) this stems from time on message boards for the recent annoyance with a number of athiests and well, message boards and real life with christians...

i go to another message board (ethical atheist) and i get told that i'm stupid and wrong to be agnostic by some people... that i should believe firmly that there is no god as apparantly that is the only logical conclusion there is. :roll:

i get told similar things by christians online, and there are christians in real life who've tried to shove copies of the new testament in my hand or a flyer for a church meeting. there are probably 20 christian groups at my school, but not one budhist group, not one athiest club, not one agnostic or spiritualist group. i've been preached at by people on street corners, looked down on and told that i'm going to hell. not to mention the horrible butchering of science by some people. (young earthers especially)

you know what's funny? right now, i'm not too pleased with members of either group (atheists and christians) this stems from time on message boards for the recent annoyance with a number of athiests and well, message boards and real life with christians...

i go to another message board (ethical atheist) and i get told that i'm stupid and wrong to be agnostic by some people... that i should believe firmly that there is no god as apparantly that is the only logical conclusion there is. :roll:

i get told similar things by christians online, and there are christians in real life who've tried to shove copies of the new testament in my hand or a flyer for a church meeting. there are probably 20 christian groups at my school, but not one budhist group, not one athiest club, not one agnostic or spiritualist group. i've been preached at by people on street corners, looked down on and told that i'm going to hell. not to mention the horrible butchering of science by some people. (young earthers especially)
it is really stupid when atheists tell you that it doesn't make sense to be agnostic- like we're just waiting to see what happens to be right...It doesn't make sense to believe something before you know it's right! At least, not from the atheist perspective that is- religion is supposed to be based on faith...

well, they really liked accusing me of cowardise, fence sitting and being irrational. not to mention making compromises... apparantly in order to consider a possibility of a god, one must have proof that there is one.
it's kind of funny though, because the atheists i was speaking to seemed to be more of reactionaries... they disliked christianity so much that they swore off everything. i know that many if not most atheists aren't like that, but those in particular were quite anti-religious. the way i see it, it's one thing to have a problem with people trying to convert you, it's another to launch senseless and unprovoked attacks. it's also funny how they were kind of trying to convert me and how it felt like i was talking to a young earth creationist except it was for the other side.

i don't think it's really possible to know either way anymore and well, i think i've almost given up on caring about an answer. i figure that all one can do is love their life to its fullest and see what happens.

Im an Aethiest and I believe in stuff.

Im an Aethiest and I believe in stuff.

I have morals that I hold to. But I won't organize them.