NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:

oblivion.

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:
The same way everyone else feels about it, minus an afterlife.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.
You're right atheism is not a religion, it's more like the opposite of.

will all non-atheists stop posting on this thread (except for me because I started it). I would like to know what Atheists think.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

Actually, atheism is a religion. Its the belief in nothing which is a belief system, therefore a religion.

The idea behind atheism is a system of belief within proof. At least you got that part right. Atheists tend not to believe anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or prove exists. They then set out to find the things that cannot be defined by such sense and to either prove their existance or non-existance.

As for stupid and pointless, well, we tend to believe that organized religion (such as Christianity) pretty much defines stupid and pointless. I guess that makes us even.

but what about dieing. r u scared? at peace with it? what?

Actually, atheism is a religion. Its the belief in nothing which is a belief system, therefore a religion.

The idea behind atheism is a system of belief within proof. At least you got that part right. Atheists tend not to believe anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or prove exists. They then set out to find the things that cannot be defined by such sense and to either prove their existance or non-existance.

As for stupid and pointless, well, we tend to believe that organized religion (such as Christianity) pretty much defines stupid and pointless. I guess that makes us even.


That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

death isn't scary. it is just the end.

Actually, atheism is a religion. Its the belief in nothing which is a belief system, therefore a religion.

not all belief systems are religions

but what about dieing. r u scared? at peace with it? what?
Not any more scared about it then anyone else. To be honest I don't think about it much. The only thing I'm afraid of is dieing before I really had a shot at life however I think we all share this fear.

Im an athiest.

To me, death is the end.

Thats it.

No afterlife.....no paradise....nothing.

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

I've been there, and I wasn't too impressed. I used to be a christian, then I got old enough to think and stop being indoctrinated. Thats when I saw all the problems with religion. After that point, I stopped believing in religion. I can be the person who I want to be without religion. I don't need a promise of eternal happiness when not a single report of it has been found. Here's an illustration.

A man walks up to you on the street, He says "I can give you a billion dollars a day for the rest of your life, but first, you have to come listen to me talk every sunday for your entire life, donate money to me, and believe everything I say.

Your response - the guy is a wack job. That's how I see religion.

So, instead of telling other people to open their minds to religion, why don't you open yours to the problems and hypocrisy of religion. If you can, that is.

That just means Atheists are narrowminded
Oh please....
You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained
Says who you? Atheists don't believe what they do because they believe everything can be explained, its based on evidence or a lack there of.

open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.
Personal attacks rarely get converts. Even if there are some things which are unexplainable by science or what not, who is to say what the true explanation is?

but what about dieing. r u scared? at peace with it? what?

Death is inevitable, why fear it? I am an atheist, when I die I will decompose into the soil and the nutrients will be recycled. I do not believe in reincarnation or the afterlife.

Death is inevitable, why fear it? I am an atheist, when I die I will decompose into the soil and the nutrients will be recycled. I do not believe in reincarnation or the afterlife.


Look on the sunnyside why don't you.

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

It seems it is you who is narrow-minded, clearly evident from your inability to accept other's beliefs.
You are free to place your faith in something you cannot see and of which there is no evidence of its existence. That is your choice and you are welcome to it. It is sad you cannot allow others their beliefs without passing judgement.

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

Atheism doesn't deny the existence of things beyond our senses, does it? I was under the impression that it only denied the existence of god and left the possibility open for many things we can't see.

As far as I know, atheists have no problem opening up to another realm of thought or feeling. They just have a problem with arbitrarily picking a mythology to live by. They don't see a reason why this or that god has to be the explanation of everything/anything.

Things that may exist beyond our senses are not exclusively limited to your made-up god.

And just so I'm not a total jerk for ignoring the point of this thread:

Just because I don't believe in a god doesn't mean I dicount the possibility of some type of existence after this life. I can speculate on what could be beyond death (including the possibility of oblivion, which inspires me to live this life to the fullest, whatever that means to me), but I cannot state with any confidence what lies after our current lives, and thus I cannot base my actions in this life on any expectations about an afterlife.

Although I would probably feel deep sadness about leaving this world (as well as, I hope, satisfaction), I am very interested in finding out what happens after (and if it turns out to be obliivion or the like, I won't find out, but I also won't care anymore, so either way that curiosity is taken care of).


Does what I've said above mean that I cannot be labeled an atheist? Am I missing something by assuming the definition of atheism is not believing in any god?

Look on the sunnyside why don't you.

I am. Life is short, enjoy it while it lasts. Denying death is inevitable is merely denying the truth. What happens after death? Opinions vary. I have stated my beliefs, afterall, that is what this thread is about is it not?

When I first saw this I thought it was about Atheists Dieting.
That jsut makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, like I've just eaten a kitten.

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.
Why don't you open your mind to another's point of view? If you can, that is.

Tell me one thing, other than God (your belief, not mine,) that can't be seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted, but is known to exist.

As to dying; Blood Sweat & Tears put it best;

I can swear there ain't no Heaven
But I pray there ain't no hell

I'll only be afraid of dieing if I haven't accomplished anything significant before I go.

I don't feel anything about death. When I die, I'll be dead. What comes after that? Probably nothing. And I'm fine with that if that's the case. If there is something more, I'll deal with that when I reach it.

It seems it is you who is narrow-minded, clearly evident from your inability to accept other's beliefs.
You are free to place your faith in something you cannot see and of which there is no evidence of its existence. That is your choice and you are welcome to it. It is sad you cannot allow others their beliefs without passing judgement.



The only narrow-minded person is you, If you want to be ignorant to other ways of seeing things be my guest, But i won't follow you.

I don't feel anything about death. When I die, I'll be dead. What comes after that? Probably nothing. And I'm fine with that if that's the case. If there is something more, I'll deal with that when I reach it.


There is nothing for you, You chose that path.

I am. Life is short, enjoy it while it lasts. Denying death is inevitable is merely denying the truth. What happens after death? Opinions vary. I have stated my beliefs, afterall, that is what this thread is about is it not?



Believe what you want, But i refuse to go along with you. I trust myself, and what I feel, and feel there is more to life that what I see.

The only narrow-minded person is you, If you want to be ignorant to other ways of seeing things be my guest, But i won't follow you.

Yes, keep telling yourself that and you'll be fine.... :p

Can you point me in the direction of where I am being ignorant of other people's way of seeing things?

In regard to certain peoples antireligious and antiantireligious statements:
Persecution is worse than murder

All religions which do not harm others should be accepted by everyone who deserves to live. If you want to chase down the atheists or the christians or whomever it may be, you obviously are mentally disturbed. You have opinions that you should bottle up inside yourself, so that everyone else can go about their lives. Stop posting bashings and go about your lives.

The only narrow-minded person is you, If you want to be ignorant to other ways of seeing things be my guest, But i won't follow you.
Understanding other beliefs and actually believing them are two different things.

Dude, dying sucks. Generally I try to do it as little as possible.
In general atheists have to accept that bad things happen to good people. Death is one of those bad things.

Believe what you want, But i refuse to go along with you. I trust myself, and what I feel, and feel there is more to life that what I see.

Congratulations. As I said earlier, you are welcome to your beliefs. This thread is of course asking atheists about their thoughts on dying. If you are looking to help people "see the light" and find God then you have perhaps stumbled into the wrong thread.

Its 5th grade physics to know that once you die, the atoms in your body still exsist, and they have been around since the creation of the universe.

Technically speaking, reincarnation can be scientifically justified. If you are not required to reincarnate as a living thing, that is. Your molecules and atoms never cease to exsist, always being reused for different things.

Yes, keep telling yourself that and you'll be fine.... :p

Can you point me in the direction of where I am being ignorant of other people's way of seeing things?


Read your post again.

Its 5th grade physics to know that once you die, the atoms in your body still exsist, and they have been around since the creation of the universe.

Technically speaking, reincarnation can be scientifically justified. If you are not required to reincarnate as a living thing, that is. Your molecules and atoms never cease to exsist, always being reused for different things.


I could have told you that. :rolleyes:

Read your post again.

Which one?

Atheism is just a religion...

Atheism ... is NOT a religion.

Excuse me?

Which one?


Oh forget it!

Its 5th grade physics to know that once you die, the atoms in your body still exsist, and they have been around since the creation of the universe.

Technically speaking, reincarnation can be scientifically justified. If you are not required to reincarnate as a living thing, that is. Your molecules and atoms never cease to exsist, always being reused for different things.

I know, thats why I said nutrients from my decomposition would be recycled after I die and am buried.

Excuse me?


It is and isn't. It has a set of beliefs, But all are based on not believing anything at all.

It is and isn't. It has a set of beliefs, But all are based on not believing anything at all.
Correction: It is based on believing what can be proven.

Dude, dying sucks. Generally I try to do it as little as possible.
In general atheists have to accept that bad things happen to good people. Death is one of those bad things.


I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. I know death is bad for the people left alive, but I don't think we can say with certainty whether death is bad or good. I've hated it when my loved ones have died, but maybe the world, or the dead, are better off that way? We can't really say.

Death seems to be working for the world so far, though. Organisms strive for the most energy-efficient configuration, and I'm pretty sure it ends up being more efficient (in terms of ensuring the existence of our DNA)for humans to create entirely new bodies (offspring) rather than attempt to maintain older bodies.

If that is true, death may actually be a good thing.

There is nothing for you, You chose that path.

Well, duh. Life would be pretty boring if my path was chosen for me. I'm fine with the path I've chosen, I have no regrets.

Correction: It is based on believing what can be proven.



Riiiiiight. ;)

I know, thats why I said nutrients from my decomposition would be recycled after I die and am buried.

sorry, I didn't read through the entire thread :rolleyes:

Well, duh. Life would be pretty boring if my path was chosen for me. I'm fine with the path I've chosen, I have no regrets.


If you say so. :)

I don't preoccupy my mind with things that most definitely won't concern me any time in the near future unless I die unexpectedly...but then again, I also don't preoccupy my mind with farfetched unexpectedness.

If you say so. :)

I do, good sir, I do. Just as I'm sure you are happy with the path you have chosen. All is as it should be.

It is and isn't. It has a set of beliefs, But all are based on not believing anything at all.

So what is the [b]set of[/ub] beliefs of the atheist 'religion'?

As for the original question, since death is inevitable (unless we find a way to achieve immortality soon), I see no reason to get upset about it. I'll try to delay it for as long as I can comfortably can (ie, I won't try to live 5 more seconds if I'm in agony).
When I do die, I'll just have to see what happens shall I? I'm actually looking forward to it in a kind of morbid fashion.

Oh forget it!

Ok, I'll do your homework for you:

POST #16

Originally Posted by Spencer and Wellington
but what about dieing. r u scared? at peace with it? what?

My reply: Death is inevitable, why fear it? I am an atheist, when I die I will decompose into the soil and the nutrients will be recycled. I do not believe in reincarnation or the afterlife.

POST #18

Originally Posted by RaidersNation
That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

My Reply: It seems it is you who is narrow-minded, clearly evident from your inability to accept other's beliefs.
You are free to place your faith in something you cannot see and of which there is no evidence of its existence. That is your choice and you are welcome to it. It is sad you cannot allow others their beliefs without passing judgement.


POST #20

Originally Posted by RaidersNation
Look on the sunnyside why don't you.

My Reply: I am. Life is short, enjoy it while it lasts. Denying death is inevitable is merely denying the truth. What happens after death? Opinions vary. I have stated my beliefs, afterall, that is what this thread is about is it not?

POST #27

Originally Posted by RaidersNation
The only narrow-minded person is you, If you want to be ignorant to other ways of seeing things be my guest, But i won't follow you.

My Reply: Yes, keep telling yourself that and you'll be fine....

Can you point me in the direction of where I am being ignorant of other people's way of seeing things?


So, I ask again. Where was I ignorant about others beliefs? I can only see where I answered a question of the OP, responded to you accusing atheists of being narrow-minded for not sharing your beliefs and a reply to your inferring I was pessimistic in my beliefs on what happens after death. At no point did I criticise people for their beliefs nor did I deny them the right to have those beliefs.

When I die, I believe that my body will decompose and I won't have to think about anything again. Life is all about thinking and making decisions and death is the exact opposite; No more thinking and no more decisions.

Although, I'd classify myself as agnostic which means that I do not know whether there is a god or not but refuse to make a decision. Opposed to athiesm which is not believing.

Also, RaiderNation, you should just leave. You are not doing anything constructive by being here. Only getting on others nerves.

My 2 cents.

Why are you people so hung up on logistics?
"Atheists" have various views [regarding life] as well.

Atheism is not a religion (in my opinion). Basically, it is a belief system based not on religious dogma or faith, but on scientific facts and various speculations.

I can be atheist and speculate that gods and the afterlife exist; I just refuse to accept mainstream monotheistic ideologies and let that be the end all.

That being said, defining Atheism is a troubling issue, especially when you have [elitist and ignorant religious] people defining it in such twisted and innacurate ways:

Example, from looking "atheism" up in dictionary.com:


3 entries found for atheism.
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European Roots.]

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


atheism

\A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.] 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall.

Atheism and pantheism are often wrongly confounded. --Shipley.

2. Godlessness.


[Free Trial - Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Looking up other terms only sickens me more. They equate pantheism, atheism, and polytheism, and claim that they are antonyms to theism ---

Furthermore, their quotes are severely lacking. There are plenty of positive quotes regarding atheism which can be found here:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm

When I die, I believe that my body will decompose and I won't have to think about anything again. Life is all about thinking and making decisions and death is the exact opposite; No more thinking and no more decisions.

Although, I'd classify myself as agnostic which means that I do not know whether there is a god or not but refuse to make a decision. Opposed to athiesm which is not believing.

Also, RaiderNation, you should just leave. You are not doing anything constructive by being here. Only getting on others nerves.

My 2 cents.


Go home to mommy and stop acting like a little brat you annoying little punk!

Example, from looking "atheism" up in dictionary.com:

The habit of assuming atheists are immoral is annoying. I consider myself to have strong morals but I am also atheist. I agree with you that atheism is intentionally misrepresented by certain members of religious orders to portray atheism as evil.

Go home to mommy and stop acting like a little brat you annoying little punk!

What does that have to do with atheists views on dying?

What does that have to do with atheists views on dying?

That was his response to the request for him to leave.

That was his response to the request for him to leave.

I know, but what he was responding to also accused him of offering nothing important to the discussion. Hence my post to try and get him posting on topic again. Seems it failed but what can you do?

The habit of assuming atheists are immoral is annoying. I consider myself to have strong morals but I am also atheist. I agree with you that atheism is intentionally misrepresented by certain members of religious orders to portray atheism as evil.
That's true. Most dictionaries have translations such as "immoral" and "wicked" when you look up "atheist". It doesn't really strengthen the trust.

Just out of curiosity, doesn't atheism literally mean, "against belief" and not "against gods"?
Do you mean the word? it depends how you define theism, naturally atheism will be the opposite of that. Theism is generally defined as a believe in god(s) therefor atheism is the disbelieve in god(s).

Just out of curiosity, doesn't atheism literally mean, "against belief" and not "against gods"?

the·ism
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


So atheism would be the opposite, meaning atheists are those that do not believe in a god.

OR:

Theism

\The"ism\ (th[=e]"[i^]z'm), n. [NL. & E. thea tea + -ism.] (Med.) The morbid condition resulting from the excessive use of tea.

Atheists would be people who do not suffer from a morbid condition resulting from excessive tea consumption.

:p

You have failed to answer my question, RaidersNation. What exists, other than God (your belief man, not mine,) that can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt?

I am an atheist, and as far as dieing goes, its just something to be accepting of, when you die, there is nothing more, the soul is a product of the brain, without a living brain/body, the soul dies. But there is hope in this rather grim sounding message, and the message is to live today, do not live in fear of the inevitable, or you will have wasted your life. The only part of you that is left post-mortem is the effect you had on other people, good or bad.

As far as atheism is concerned, it is based on concrete facts, not fairy tales and hearsay, it is the belief of the logical. Not to say there are no good values in religion, but these are values that are inherent in everyone of any faith, not requiring of some fairy tale to accompany.

The bible was written over thousands of years with contradiction after contradiction, modified to the specifications of any power-that-be, in short religion is a tool for the extreme to control the logical, and to get wealthy in the process. Just be glad there are more atheists today than ever before...

What is the term for atheism?
Certainly not a 'religion' as that term holds great stigma for any atheist...

It might be called: faith, belief, logic, critical thinking, vision, truth, reality, knowledge, facts, science....

Holy books are:
1/3 Hearsay
1/3 Moral Fairy Tales
1/3 Fabrications by power hungry men.

Good day.... ;) :upyours:

You have failed to answer my question, RaidersNation. What exists, other than God (your belief man, not mine,) that can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt?

Science. Numbers. These all are invented devices to help define our surroundings, are they not?
--

My head hurts, I want to watch Adult Swim.


[Insert shameless plug for joining Atheist Empire]

when you die, your consionious (cant spell) dies with you, you simply cease to exist. the reason why religious people cant accept this is because they cant imagin the absence of consionious as they have never expirenced it (and im not talking about being knocked out, as it is not (in the most case) perminate). Athiest still cant even imagin what it is like, but still accept this

as for living life to its fulliest, thats kinda pointless, as you wont remember this once you die. life is simply a pointless cycle, the only reason why everyone doesnt just commit suicide is because of those neuro-chemicles preventing this from happening (and upset in these chemicle balances causes suicide)

BTW im not suicidal or anything, i just have a very synicle view on life (and bad spelling/grammar to boot)

But that's wrong. Theists believe in [a God] who doesn't interact with the physical plane, whereas Deists believe in [a God] who interacts with the physical plane.
Isn't the other way around?

de·ism
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Edit: I just noticed this but isn't the part where it says it is based soley on reason another example of bias?

But that's wrong. Theists believe in [a God] who doesn't interact with the physical plane, whereas Deists believe in [a God] who interacts with the physical plane.

It may well be. Definitions of words tend to "evolve" over time to take new meaning. For example, the word "gay" had a far different meaning 50 years ago compared to today.

Science. Numbers. These all are invented devices to help define our surroundings, are they not?
--

My head hurts, I want to watch Adult Swim.


[Insert shameless plug for joining Atheist Empire]
Ah, but like you said; invented. Man made them. I should have been a bit clearer; What exists, other than God (your belief man, not mine,) that isn't man-made, that can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt?

Heheh. oops. Yeah, my bad.

I DID mix up deism and theism.

Pardon me, I'm quite exhausted.

as for living life to its fullest, thats kinda pointless, as you wont remember this once you die. life is simply a pointless cycle, the only reason why everyone doesnt just commit suicide is because of those neuro-chemicals preventing this from happening (and upset in these chemical balances causes suicide)


This train of thought leads to existentialism... but then again, the whole idea of the omniverse/universe imploding/exploding sort of defeats the purpose of improving the world before you die...
leading to nihilism.

[or maybe I've mixed up my facts again]

When a human dies, the energy that composes them (atoms and molecules) break apart (decompose) and return to the earth. It may not be the same form that we are used to seeing, but that energy never dies. In a way, it is everlasting life... (that is the so called "soul" which isn't really a soul, because when a person's brain dies, so does their ability to think and feel. etc. Its just energy returning to the earth. (some may get eaten by worms *if you are burried* some will just decompose into the ground... )

the term atheist has two meanings:

1.A person who positively believes that no God(s) or Goddess(es) exists. E. Haldeman-Julius suggests that "The atheist perceives that history, in every branch of science, in the plainly observable realities of life and in the processes of common sense there is no place for the picture of a God; the idea doesn't fit in with a calmly reasoned and realistic view of life. The atheist, therefore denies the assumptions of theism because they are mere assumptions and are not proved; whereas the contrary evidences, against the idea of theism, are overwhelming." 1 This is the definition of Atheism used by most Christians, other Theists, and dictionaries of the English language.


2. A person who has no belief in a God or Goddess. Just as a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. The term "Atheist" is derived from the Greek words "a" which means "without" and "Theos" which means "God." A person can be a non-Theist by simply lacking a belief in God without actively denying God's existence. This is the definition of Atheism used by many Atheists. They use the term "strong Atheist" to refer to a person who denies the existence of one or more deities.


Some Agnostics feel that their beliefs match the second definition, and thus consider themselves to be both Atheist and an Agnostic. Such confusion is common in the field of religion. We have found 17 definitions for the term "Witch," eight for "cult," and six for the "Pagan." -- all different. A lack of clear, unambiguous definitions for religious terms is responsible for a great deal of confusion and hatred.

It'd be the same as going to sleep, but not waking up. And as you can only remember your dreams after you wake, I guess even if your consciousness did somehow survive, it wouldn't matter as you would have no awareness of it anyway.
The biggest difference between Atheists and believers is that Atheists live their life not looking forward to death and believers do.

I haven't thought about death too much and I'd consider myself an atheist. There seem to be a number of militant atheists here too, but I'm not one of them.

I kind of think that nothing much happens after death. Actually I find the idea of just nothing peaceful. This kind of thinking hasn't led to think that nothing matters in this life. I'd like to live "to the fullest" because it's more fun and satisfying that way, and its better to be alive than dead.

I am an athiest and personally, i figure death isnt something to worry about, becuase once it happens you won't really notice it.

I also believe that religion is little more than a coping mecenism (cant spell) for a species that needs a sence of purpose, and can find none in the real world

But, if someone decides to believe in a god (or gods) and becuase of that, does good for the world, then more power too them. It is those who use religion to do harm to the world that really tick me off...

And yeah, the last two bits didnt have anything to do with the thread, but oh well

Some Agnostics feel that their beliefs match the second definition, and thus consider themselves to be both Atheist and an Agnostic.

half of all this confusion is the agnostics' fault. first they make up a new word to distinguish themselves from atheists, because unlike atheists they believe either that we don't currently (because there is no evidence or the evidence is evenly balanced), or cannot ever know whether a god exists or not. then they go around using the term as if it just means a lack of belief in god. no, that's atheism. we had the word first, deal with it.

I'm an atheist, and even though I am quite young and hopefuly have a good long while ahead of me, the idea of death scares me if I think about it. Just the thought that one day I won't be here is quite terrifying sometimes. I realise that when the time comes I'll be dead so it won't bother me anyway, but I guess when you are young you somehow imagine you'll be around forever. I try not to dwell on it, but I can see why a lot of people look forward to an afterlife and take comfort in it.

Why is the thought of dieing such a big deal? It is natural, it is inevitable. This doesn't mean people should rush it, but it does mean that worrying about death is futile.

Personally, I believe every decision, every action shapes the world, and that everything is interconnected. That is life. I do what I feel makes the world better, because as I am part of the world that makes me better. There is no need to please any overseer. I act as I do because of my belief that I (along with everything else in existance) am creating the current shape of the world. When I die, as eventually everything shall, my existance and actions will have become part of the greater weaving of reality. That cannot be undone. It can be woven around, but that part is immortal. Why worry about dieing. It could happen any second. Now is all we really have at any given point in time anyway. Make the most of it.

If you want to imagen how things are when you are death, try to think about before you were born.

Why worry about it? You can dodge taxes, but sooner or later mister Reaper comes for us all ;)

Why worry about it? You can dodge taxes, but sooner or later mister Reaper comes for us all ;)

People worry about it because there is a natural instinct in almost every human to survive for as long as possible. The want to live forever creates the by-product of worrying about death.

I am an atheist, and as far as dieing goes, its just something to be accepting of, when you die, there is nothing more, the soul is a product of the brain, without a living brain/body, the soul dies. But there is hope in this rather grim sounding message, and the message is to live today, do not live in fear of the inevitable, or you will have wasted your life. The only part of you that is left post-mortem is the effect you had on other people, good or bad.

As far as atheism is concerned, it is based on concrete facts, not fairy tales and hearsay, it is the belief of the logical. Not to say there are no good values in religion, but these are values that are inherent in everyone of any faith, not requiring of some fairy tale to accompany.

The bible was written over thousands of years with contradiction after contradiction, modified to the specifications of any power-that-be, in short religion is a tool for the extreme to control the logical, and to get wealthy in the process. Just be glad there are more atheists today than ever before...

What is the term for atheism?
Certainly not a 'religion' as that term holds great stigma for any atheist...

It might be called: faith, belief, logic, critical thinking, vision, truth, reality, knowledge, facts, science....

Holy books are:
1/3 Hearsay
1/3 Moral Fairy Tales
1/3 Fabrications by power hungry men.

Good day.... ;) :upyours:

I have a problem with that. You can't expect people to respect atheism if you don't respect other religions. My thought is that there is a God, not neccesarilly a Christian, or any type of religion. Oh and as for power hungry men... There was a man selling lollipops downtown for 1 dollar to support their church, which didn't get any funds except from donations and lollipop sellers. They let anyone come to their church, homeless, people waaaaay below the poverty line, anyone. I also doubt that Buddhist monks who live in secluded temples are power hungry men either.

Atheists I know generally keep it to themselves. It seems to be some (a minority) of Christians that push their faith on everyone else.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

.....Is'nt that the idea? that we arent tied down to our precious images of a diety that comes about because of chemicals in the mind, human insecurity, and phycological tendencies? who the F*** says your right anyway? NOBODY, you cant proove it, we cant proove it, but just have some pissin respect.

Atheism is the fastest growing mindset in western society, one that gives permission to have no consious about sin or feel no guilt for it, its a very attractive concept for people who want to feel no responsibility for their actions or thoughts.
You too can be guilt free by simply choosing not to believe in a God or an afterlife.

Atheism is the fastest growing mindset in western society, one that gives permission to have no consious about sin or feel no guilt for it, its a very attractive concept for people who want to feel no responsibility for their actions or thoughts.
You too can be guilt free by simply choosing not to believe in a God or an afterlife.

This is a common misconception about atheists, that we are lacking in morals or conscience. Its a sad attempt by religious groups to categorise "non-believers" as evil.
I have morals and principle. I am a law abiding citizen who respects other people and their property...I am also an atheist. Believing in God has no bearing on your morality.

Again, this is exactly the sort of rubbish I was talking about in that other thread. You know, the one where some guy claimed atheists always attack Christians :rolleyes: ?

Within the first few posts, atheists were already having to defend themselves. Typical. And the more atheists are attacked by the religious, the more they will grow to dislike you. This is a thread for atheists to state their beliefs on a certain subject, NOT have a bunch of religious people come in and attack us.

Death is inevitable. I have an instinct to survive, but I'm aware of my own mortality. That could create a few problems if I cared enough to listen to my instincts. It's a programming flaw, I guess.

athiests go to the same place that christians, jews and most other people go to when they die. Under the ground.

Atheism is the fastest growing mindset in western society, one that gives permission to have no consious about sin or feel no guilt for it, its a very attractive concept for people who want to feel no responsibility for their actions or thoughts.
You too can be guilt free by simply choosing not to believe in a God or an afterlife.


Why do you assume that morality is exclusive to christians?

Are you saying that becuase Im an athiest, that Im automatically immoral, or a bad person, or that I choose to do bad things and dont want to feel guilty?

Thats the most arrogant thing I think Ive ever heard.

Death is the end indeed and nothing to be scared of. Personally it does sadden me that after death I won't take part in the world anymore. I like to be alive and enjoy my perception of reality. It's the Big Sleep, without the 'perchance to dream'. There will be nothing left to dream with.

As for atheism being a religion: it's not. It's science. When the neurons generating the electric impulses which constitute your "mind" -your awareness, your self-awareness- stop firing, that's the end. (I put "mind" between quotes, as "mind" is a bodily function, not a separate entity)

Also in this respect: religion smacks of Spukhafte Fernwirkung, spooky action at a distance. I never understood indeed how Albert Einstein could at the same time be so critical toward the idea of entanglement and believe in a Creator violating physical laws.

I can only interpret this aspect of religion as fear of dying.

If you want to imagen how things are when you are death, try to think about before you were born.

That's a nice one to remember. Thanks!

Im an Atheist/Agnostic. Im not scared of death, but scared of dieying...

Hey: look what happened.

AFTER submitting my thread 'fear of dying' a couple of minutes ago I googled "spooky action at a distance" and look what popped up:

http://www.chestnutcafe.com/cafe/index.html?manifesto

An atheist dies and to his big surprise there IS an afterlife. He arrives at a peaceful hotel-like establishment where he is shown the premises by a friendly young lady. She shows him the comfortable rooms, private and communal both, the dining room where exquisite meals are served, the gym, the pool, the lush garden. When they have been walking in the garden for a while they come to a high wall from behind which horrible wails and screams arise. The atheist shivers and asks what this is all about, so the young lady replies: "Oh, never mind that. It's the hell of the Christians."

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]Why do you assume that morality is exclusive to christians?

I didnt say Christians, you did.

Are you saying that becuase Im an athiest, that Im automatically immoral, or a bad person, or that I choose to do bad things and dont want to feel guilty?

It would make it alot easier to be immoral but, wouldnt you agree?

To the guy who said this discussions for the Athiests only, wrong, its a discussion about Atheism, anyones welcome to join, provided their not overly abusive, so get your facts right.

Personaly I'm not afraid of dieing myself, because i won't feel it, my brain will be dead.
I am however afraid of other people dieing around me, people I can't imagine living without.

To the guy who said this discussions for the Athiests only, wrong, its a discussion about Atheism, anyones welcome to join, provided their not overly abusive, so get your facts right.

As you're not the thread starter, it's rather interesting for you to rewrite the purpose of the thread. The thread starter simply wanted to know the views of atheists regarding death. He didn't seem to imply that he wanted religious people to tell us how our beliefs are incorrect...

As you're not the thread starter, it's rather interesting for you to rewrite the purpose of the thread. The thread starter simply wanted to know the views of atheists regarding death. He didn't seem to imply that he wanted religious people to tell us how our beliefs are incorrect...

Yeah well your not the thread starter either are you.
If you cant handle a little crititism from one religous person it doesnt say much for what you believe in does it?

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?)
It's a natural thing, certainly not something to be feared or called evil (as religiotards are wont to do).

Thats right when you cant debate properly just resort to childish name calling.
Im religous and I dont fear death either.

Im religous and I dont fear death either.

Yes, you do.

No actually I dont.
I believe I'll go to heaven when I die, and thats fine with me, if you want to believe your just going to rot in a box or end forever in whatever other way your disposed of, then you have my pity for the dullness of this ending that you seem to see as a fact already.

Dying in a painful manner, yes I do fear that, as most people would.

But the act of dying in the last moments of your life, is not your actual death so to speak is it?

I'm an atheist... I've been an atheist for most of life. I can't help it. It's just what I believe.

So far as the concept of death is concerned. It scares me. I accepted long ago that when I die, it will be the end of my consciousness and very being. I wish there was something after my death to look forward (from a spiritual point of view) but this is just something I cannot accept. Try as I may, I cannot find it in myself to believe in certain things. It is impossible to choose to believe in something. You either believe in something or you don't. And I have news for some of you... this is not something that can be intellectualised.

I believe that most of those who have faith in a religion that embraces and looks forward to an afterlife will never ever fully comprehend how an atheist feels about life. You have no idea. You subscribe to a set of rules for living your lives and for the most part most try to follow those. Many of you may say that you do, but very few of you will ever truly understand.

Atheists come to believe in what they believe of their own volition. There are no blueprints for an atheist's belief. Nobody tells us to become atheists. Our concepts of right and wrong, it can be argued, are probably borrowed from whatever society we live in (how society formed those beliefs are not the topic of this thread).

Personally... What happens when I die? What is my own concept of heaven and hell? I'll put it in bullet points.

When I die...

* I hope that with my last breath, I can find at least one good thing that I have done in my life for somebody else to make that person's life better.

* I hope to be remembered fondly by family, friends and colleagues as somebody who was fair and honourable in his dealings with other human beings.

* I hope that people will remember more good than bad about me regardless of their own beliefs (be they religious or not).

* I hope that the world is a better place when I die than what it was when I was born and that maybe... just maybe... I did my part to bring that about (however small).

* I hope that any children I have helped raise will go on to do their part in making the world a better place.

* I hope that if I was wrong about an afterlife -- and that our lives have already planned out ahead of us -- that whatever being counts for a 'god' that passes a sentence on my life if I come to he/she/it will judge me for the good that I have done in life - if any, I'm only 31 after all :). Of course I don't believe I'm wrong...

* I hope that nothing that I have ever done in life has caused grave harm or injustice to an individual or group of people.

Well, that's what this atheist thinks about dying :)

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:
i'm agnostic, not atheist, but my answer to this question is usually the same as an atheist's: death of my brain tissues is the death of my consciousness. death of my sensory organs is death of my perception. death of my frontal neurons is death of my personality. i don't believe anything that i call "me" will survive the death of my physical body.

and no, i don't find that depressing. no, i wouldn't rather believe in an afterlife. i spent much of my life preparing to die, since i have a medical condition that was originally predicted to kill me before my 25th birthday (said prediction having been much revised now that new meds are available), and all my preparations led me to the conclusion that an afterlife is a much more depressing prospect than the view i now currently hold. not to mention that the existence of an afterlife is refuted by all current data, of course ;).

No actually I dont.
I believe I'll go to heaven when I die, and thats fine with me, if you want to believe your just going to rot in a box or end forever in whatever other way your disposed of, then you have my pity for the dullness of this ending that you seem to see as a fact already.

Dying in a painful manner, yes I do fear that, as most people would.

But the act of dying in the last moments of your life, is not your actual death so to speak is it?

Fear of death or harm is one of the most primaeval emotions a human being can have. There is a big difference between those who accept death and those who say they do not fear it.

The only proof for the existence of the divine, that I have ever found is in the minds of others.

As to what happens when we die? It's merely the cessation of life as we understand or indeed know it. In other words, oblivion.

Actually, atheism is a religion. Its the belief in nothing which is a belief system, therefore a religion.

I believe my dishwasher will wash my dishes, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, I believe if I jump up, I will come down.. just because you believe some thing, it does not make it a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion. The only thing we have in common with other atheists is that there is no higher being then us. That's it, that's all. You can also believe in god and not be part of religion. There are no religions based on being an atheist. I seriously doubt you can find me one single religion where the tenets of their belief is on being an atheist.

Oh, as to fear of dying.. I don't fear it, it's part of the process, every one dies. I was born, I will live and then I will die. Why be afraid of some thing I'm never going to be aware of any way. It will just be like being a sleep without dreaming and I shall never wake up. However, since I will be dead, I will have nothing to fear because I will be gone. Nothing to be afraid of.

Well, I'm not paricularily afraid of death, as it were... My belief is that after I stop breathing and my body ceases to function (commonly reffered to as dying), either I will simply cease to think, feel, and therefore cease to be, or I will go to an afterlife. I don't much care either way.
And if the Christians are right, and I am going to hell... Well, at least I hear it's warm down there. And I do like the smell of brimstone.

I don't believe in an afterlife.I will die and am not afraid because loads of other people have done so and they have never complained to me about it.

Well i'm an Athiest, and recenltly an Exastentialist (forgive the spelling), and i belive that there is life after death, but not what Christians and alike would like to belive. When we die, our bodies shut down, our brains shut down, and you basically turn off like a toaster when you unplug it, for we are just big organic machines, it's as simple as that! We live on however in the minds of those we know, as long as our family and friends remember us, we shall never die, well, philisophically speaking anyway.
I personally have no beef with the Religious peoples of the world.You choose your own life and if you make the concious choice to be a Christain, Buddist or whatever, that's cool. What i really don't like is when religious people (historically it has been mainly Christians) think they need to impose their beliefs on others. Many times i've been told "dude, you're going to hell" and other nonsence from "narrow minded" people (to quote a phrase often thrown around in this thread). While i may try to retalliate with the accepted facts that the Church has been completly corrupt since Renaissance Times, and the numerous discrepencies and contradictions within the Bible, it never really works, and i've just learned to accept it (i do in fact go to an Anglican School after all). I implore everyone who glances at this post to just think about what you're saying before you slam Religion, don't lower yourself to RaidersNation's level ;) ...

I believe my dishwasher will wash my dishes, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, I believe if I jump up, I will come down.. just because you believe some thing, it does not make it a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion. The only thing we have in common with other atheists is that there is no higher being then us. That's it, that's all. You can also believe in god and not be part of religion. There are no religions based on being an atheist. I seriously doubt you can find me one single religion where the tenets of their belief is on being an atheist.

But there you are mistaken.
You believe THAT your dishwasher will wash.
Athiests belive IN there being no god.
A small yet significant difference.

Oddly I find that atheists generally fear death less than theists as they do what they want to make themselves happy in this life and don't feel that they will pay for it later.

But there you are mistaken.
You believe THAT your dishwasher will wash.
Athiests belive IN there being no god.
A small yet significant difference.

i don't see it. you could just as easily say that an atheist believes THAT there is no God, and that i believe IN my dishwasher's ability to wash dishes.

I think we probably go to where we were before we were born.

i don't see it. you could just as easily say that an atheist believes THAT there is no God, and that i believe IN my dishwasher's ability to wash dishes.

No, you can't say that.
It's a linguistical difference that can't be stated as you said it.
Imagine 'believe that' and 'believe in' to be two enitirely different words like 'knight' and 'night'.

Atheism isn't a religion in a strict sense, however it is a religious viewpoint as it relates to religion and as such is as valid as any given religion.

No, you can't say that.
It's a linguistical difference that can't be stated as you said it.
Imagine 'believe that' and 'believe in' to be two enitirely different words like 'knight' and 'night'.

Atheism isn't a religion in a strict sense, however it is a religious viewpoint as it relates to religion and as such is as valid as any given religion.

And the 'pedantic ass-wipe of the day' award goes to _______________

And the 'pedantic ass-wipe of the day' award goes to _______________

You can be as derisive as you like but the point still stands that I have negated one of the most common theistical arguments used.
If you can't take intelligent discussion then go and bandy words with a moron convention.

When I held atheist views, I was specifically refusing the existance of a "god" or a creative/motive force that both ordered and maintained the universe and all of creation. I didn't discount the possibility of a continuation of existance or consciousness after death, although I was also forced to admit I had no specific evidence for it other than a sense that it was terribly wasteful in a universe that seems rather dead set against waste. It was also interesting to me that all societies had some concept of "afterlife", although that concept differed wildly. Finally, the idea of continuation of ordered energy seemed appealing and then, when you couple it with superstring theory and the brane conceptualization of...well, everything, it certainly seemed possible (not proven, mind you, but possible) that there is some sort of continuation or transfer of ordered energy from this slice of existance to some other.

Now that I've returned to theism, I still believe basically the same thing, except I have added a motive force component. Whether this motive force has existed eternally or was created through the power of our own faith an belief is unknown. Personally, I feel it's some from column A and some from column B. The impersonal organizing force existed, but individual personifications of parts of it (it has to be parts, because we can not hope to comprehend the whole of it in this lifetime) are created by our faith from our needs. Under this theistic view, the hope is that, should there be a continuation of awareness and consciousness after the end of this life, then there will be movement towards a further understanding of that motive force.

Life is about change, forward momentum. I postulate that death may very well be also, regardless of the existence of a divinity.

No, you can't say that.
It's a linguistical difference that can't be stated as you said it.
Imagine 'believe that' and 'believe in' to be two enitirely different words like 'knight' and 'night'.

i can imagine that, sure. unfortunately, that is not the way the English language opperates, nor is it the way those terms are used. you're asking me to play make-believe, and i am asking you to abide by the rules of language. you can't just redefine terms to suit your purpose. give up this line of assertion, you're not making any progress because you haven't a leg to stand on.

You can be as derisive as you like but the point still stands that I have negated one of the most common theistical arguments used.

no, you haven't. you redefined words to try to make a point that is not valid. try something less silly, or be prepared to endure mockery.

No, you can't say that.
It's a linguistical difference that can't be stated as you said it.
Imagine 'believe that' and 'believe in' to be two enitirely different words like 'knight' and 'night'.

Atheism isn't a religion in a strict sense, however it is a religious viewpoint as it relates to religion and as such is as valid as any given religion.

It is not a religious point of view. It has nothing to do with religion, you see I believe religion exists. It's god that I don't believe exists. God does not = religion. Many people believe in god and have no religion. You are mistaking religion for god. There is a profound difference.

Atheism isn't a religion in a strict sense, however it is a religious viewpoint as it relates to religion and as such is as valid as any given religion.
yup, just like "bald" is a hair color.

yup, just like "bald" is a hair color.

It is in my GURPS rulebook.

Atheism is the fastest growing mindset in western society, one that gives permission to have no consious about sin or feel no guilt for it, its a very attractive concept for people who want to feel no responsibility for their actions or thoughts.
You too can be guilt free by simply choosing not to believe in a God or an afterlife.
Did you think about how your response could make some people feel, before you posted it? I think you should take more responsibility for your actions and thoughts, especially when dealing with people who don't hold your beliefs.

Did you think about how your response could make some people feel, before you posted it? I think you should take more responsibility for your actions and thoughts, especially when dealing with people who don't hold your beliefs.

Not to mention he's wrong in his thesis on why people are atheists.

will all non-atheists stop posting on this thread (except for me because I started it). I would like to know what Atheists think.

You can't ban "atheists" from your thread, because there is no way to tell who is or isn't one.

You can't ban "atheists" from your thread, because there is no way to tell who is or isn't one.

That's not what he tried to do.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

That is a bit of a broad generalization wouldn't you say? Just because someone believes there is no god, that doesn't means they can't be spiritual, loving, caring people. And what does God have to do with trust? I'd say atheists have to trust, because they don't have a god to fall back on.

Keep the hating to a minimum already.

but what about dieing. r u scared? at peace with it? what?

I'm not quite atheist, because I don't believe in anything period. But personally, I'm at peace with my mortality. Sometimes too much so, I can worry and upset my family at funerals. Once a person is dead, their body in a box doesn't matter much to me anymore.

And of course, just because there is no god doesn't mean there can't be an afterlife. Personally, I don't expect anything, but that doesn't bother me. I'm working for my own immortality in the minds of people I leave behind.

An atheist dies and to his big surprise there IS an afterlife. He arrives at a peaceful hotel-like establishment where he is shown the premises by a friendly young lady. She shows him the comfortable rooms, private and communal both, the dining room where exquisite meals are served, the gym, the pool, the lush garden. When they have been walking in the garden for a while they come to a high wall from behind which horrible wails and screams arise. The atheist shivers and asks what this is all about, so the young lady replies: "Oh, never mind that. It's the hell of the Christians."

Niiiiice. I have been known on occasion when told I'm going to hell to say "It is your hell, you burn in it". I really like that idea....

That is a bit of a broad generalization wouldn't you say? Just because someone believes there is no god, that doesn't means they can't be spiritual, loving, caring people. And what does God have to do with trust? I'd say atheists have to trust, because they don't have a god to fall back on.

Well, that's kind of a two-way argument, though. Not to condone RN's pointless hating, but theists have to trust (or, indeed, have faith) that there is a "God" as much as atheists have to trust that there isn't one.

. I also doubt that Buddhist monks who live in secluded temples are power hungry men either.

Buddhists don't worship a god either :D

Well, that's kind of a two-way argument, though. Not to condone RN's pointless hating, but theists have to trust (or, indeed, have faith) that there is a "God" as much as atheists have to trust that there isn't one.

Oh, no doubt. Simply put, atheists trust what they see and can deal with. Theists, well, it depends on the religion. To some, this world is just a fabrication, to others it is real UNTIL death.

I totally agree theists believe/trust, no arguments on that one. :)

Atheists I know generally keep it to themselves. It seems to be some (a minority) of Christians that push their faith on everyone else.

What a great idea! Atheists of the world arise! Now's the time to wander the streets handing out pamplets and knocking on doors:
"Hi there, would you be interested in finding out what happens after your death? Umm...well nothing really. Thanks for your time."
Go on, go bother a Mormon or Jovvie today. Knock on their door when they're praying and ask them if they've ever thought about the pointlessness of existence. If they reply yes, tell them not to worry because when they die that's the end of it.

I believe my dishwasher will wash my dishes, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, I believe if I jump up, I will come down.. just because you believe some thing, it does not make it a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion. The only thing we have in common with other atheists is that there is no higher being then us. That's it, that's all. You can also believe in god and not be part of religion. There are no religions based on being an atheist. I seriously doubt you can find me one single religion where the tenets of their belief is on being an atheist.

You know your dishwasher will wash your dishes, unless its broken, in which case, you know its broken and won't wash your dishes. The sun rising was a religion practiced by the Aztecs - thats where the whole human sacrifice to make the sun come up thing came about. Jumping down and going down - well, that would be gravity which we all know exists. Okay, that was just for fun, but you did get me on the atheism not being a religion. Its actually classified as a secular world view.

Jumping down and going down - well, that would be gravity which we all know exists.


How do you know gravity exists? You can't see it, or hear it, or touch it, or feel it. Seriously I can't think of a situation (right now, and I'm pretty tired) that conclusively proves that 'Gravity' exists. And for the record I'm studying astrophysics at college, so this is one of those things I tend to think about a lot.

How do you know gravity exists? You can't see it, or hear it, or touch it, or feel it. Seriously I can't think of a situation (right now, and I'm pretty tired) that conclusively proves that 'Gravity' exists. And for the record I'm studying astrophysics at college, so this is one of those things I tend to think about a lot.

'gravity' itself is just a formless concept. Its a word used to decribe something we didn't have a word for before. But, with gravity, you can see and test its effects as Issac Newton did. Dropping things, for example, is a way for us to 'see' gravity.

'gravity' itself is just a formless concept. Its a word used to decribe something we didn't have a word for before. But, with gravity, you can see and test its effects as Issac Newton did. Dropping things, for example, is a way for us to 'see' gravity.

Well not really, there are easy enough way around it. You never actually saw gravity take place. What you saw was the apple going to the earth, or the other way around. Suppose for a second that every atom in the universe increased in volume at a specific rate (like doubleing every nano-sec, though this feels much to fast for what i'm talking about). Couldn't that explain the observation as well as gravity could?

Well not really, there are easy enough way around it. You never actually saw gravity take place. What you saw was the apple going to the earth, or the other way around. Suppose for a second that every atom in the universe increased in volume at a specific rate (like doubleing every nano-sec, though this feels much to fast for what i'm talking about). Couldn't that explain the observation as well as gravity could?


What you saw was actually the affect of gravity on the apple. The apple itself does not have a mass large enough to support its own gravitational field. So, instead of the earth moving to the apple, we notice the apple moving to the earth. What a strange concept we think, the apple goes to earth. I observed an effect we think, we need a name for it. Gravity we say, and so, gravity it is. What we now know as gravity is really what we observe as an affect upon another object through interaction. Once observed several thousand times over, we know it is a predicatable affect and we name it.

If every atom increased its velocity at the precise moment something fell, it would have to do that for eveytime an object dropped. A few freak cases of that could theoretically happen except for a few things: when an apple is dropped, people don't suddenly start to walk and talk several times faster. Your spit doesn't fly twice as far. Planes don't movev twice as fast, you get my drift. What that shows is that indeed, the universe is not accelerating to create this 'gravity' it is a seperate field from the rest of the atoms in the universe and does not afect everything all at once.

What you saw was actually the affect of gravity on the apple. The apple itself does not have a mass large enough to support its own gravitational field. So, instead of the earth moving to the apple, we notice the apple moving to the earth. What a strange concept we think, the apple goes to earth. I observed an effect we think, we need a name for it. Gravity we say, and so, gravity it is. What we now know as gravity is really what we observe as an affect upon another object through interaction. Once observed several thousand times over, we know it is a predicatable affect and we name it.

If every atom increased its velocity at the precise moment something fell, it would have to do that for eveytime an object dropped. A few freak cases of that could theoretically happen except for a few things: when an apple is dropped, people don't suddenly start to walk and talk several times faster. Your spit doesn't fly twice as far. Planes don't movev twice as fast, you get my drift. What that shows is that indeed, the universe is not accelerating to create this 'gravity' it is a seperate field from the rest of the atoms in the universe and does not afect everything all at once.


Hmm...interesting...but a few things.

1) The apple indeed has a gravitational field, all massive things do, however feeble it is. The word massive refers to anything with mass, not just the big stuff.

2)From my reading of Einstein it appears that Einstein would support the argument that the Earth moves toward the apple. When the apple is in free fall, ignoring the effects air (I.E. Lets talk about this in a vaccum, Lets say the experiment it performed on say the Moon.), the apple has no way to determin if it is moving. It feels no forces on it. Because of that the Apple has the ability to declare itself stationary and the Moon actually moves to it alon it's Grav Feild lines.

3)When I said that perhaps atoms were doubling in size, I didn't mean to limit it just to the action of things falling, that would be remiss. The atoms would double constantly, since the beginning of time, instantly around the universe. Now It might take me a bit, maybe you did in fact refute the argument, I'm not sure, I'll have to think about it more. But it feels like if everything increased at the same rate, the phenomonon you described should not be observed.

yo.
Maybe I’m off subject now (I kind of skipped to the end of this) but I thought the question posed at the beginning of this thread was a very good one and I wanted to state the way I see death.
Since I'm an Atheist and I don't believe in an after life I see death much like this:
Have you ever went to sleep at night and then seemingly instantly woke up in the morning. You can not remember your dreams or sleeping, you can remember nothing. That’s how I envision death. It is nothingness, but nothing isn't bad nor is it painful, it just is. It’s like going to sleep at night and waking up in the morning not remembering your dreams, just with out the waking up part.
Does that make sense or am I just insane.

What do I think?

The End.

And, hopefully, the journey to the end was fun.

I'll be honest - I didn't read the whole thread. I've also never posted here before. I am an atheist and would like to answer the original question, but first let me say that Atheism is NOT a religion, and neither is Science. the trust that atheists and scientists have is based on evidence and reason, and not faith. Richard Dawkins (a famous atheist) has explained this better than I ever could here: http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-02science_a_religion.shtml
Dawkins is avery articulate atheist, and I would recommend him to anyone who is genuinely curious. There are plenty of other writings on that site.

Anywho, to answer the question, dying is the end of my life. Nothing more than that. I guess what you really want to know is if I am scared of it. No,not really. It would suck if I died before I got the chance to have all of the experiences that I want to have, or acheive the things that I aim to acheive, but it doesn't worry me unduly. I suppose people wonder why I can be happy with the fact that I will simply cease to exist after a relatively short period, but it's not a problem. If I can look back on my life and say that I have made some kind of positive impact on the world around me then I will be happy.

Basically I feel that the fact that I am only around for so short a time makes each moment that I live precious. I think the world would be a better place if people stopped worrying about the things that they believe are going to happen after they die and concentrated on doing some good things before they died.

If anyone has any genuine questions that theywould like to ask, my webpage is stephenbrophy.net and it is relatively easy to contact me via that.

i think about death a lot and it doesn't scare or upset me. and honestly, i couldn't tell you what comes after. i like the idea of reincarnation, but the only thing i know for sure is that my body will be bug food.

Here's the thing:

Why be afraid of dying? Would dying suck if you weren't able to do everything you wanted to? Maybe. But you won't know-you'll be dead

Why be afraid of dying? Why, we have an instinctive drive to survive! As the only animals (apparently -- Maybe lemmings also have this knowledge; they're depressed, after all) with knowledge of our inevitable mortality, it conflicts with our 'hard-coding', if you will. It's like Windows trying to do more than one thing at a time -- your computer explodes. Although in all fairness Windows can barely manage one thing at a time, so we'll push that aside for now. Anyway. Anyone who claims not to have a fear of death is either lying, or hasn't had their instinct put to the test properly yet. Try being in front of a learner driver, that'll do it. Either that or they have some mental health issues.
I always compare our instinct to survive versus knowledge of our impending doom to incompatible programming instructions. One's telling us we have to stay alive whatever it costs, the other's telling us not to bother, as we'll die anyway. I have an opinion that this is what religion came from; the human programming error. It's a natural software patch, if you will. Although we're going to die for certain, religious people live safe in the knowledge that their soul, their very being, will live on forever. So the primary instinct, survival, can go ahead, incompatibility removed. But that's an entirely different topic, as is whether it was God who sat in his room coding this patch, or some big psychological programming conglomerate.

Why be afraid of dying? Why, we have an instinctive drive to survive! As the only animals (apparently -- Maybe lemmings also have this knowledge; they're depressed, after all)

Lemmings don't suicide. That's as big a myth as the idea that the Church thought the world was flat and tried to bitch-slap Columbus for saying otherwise.

http://whyfiles.org/129sci_fable/2.html

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:


personally I wonder about it a lot,I guess it's sort of impossible to know until you're dead.

Check out www.mwillett.org a very good website made by and for athiests.
The forums are something to look at.
I stumbled on it a month or so ago.

If you are an athiest you will like it there, if you are not athiest you can find answers there and maybe even come to realize that you are living a lie. That's right a total lie.

how do you explain near-death experiences then?

Check out www.mwillett.org a very good website made by and for athiests.
The forums are something to look at.
I stumbled on it a month or so ago.

If you are an athiest you will like it there, if you are not athiest you can find answers there and maybe even come to realize that you are living a lie. That's right a total lie.

Frankly, I'm about as likely to go to this website as I am to go to www.GodHatesFags.com for a "real dose" of Christianity.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

...so, it IS a religion, but at the same time, it's NOT a religion. Mmmkay. :)

That's a new one that goes in my scrapbook of favourite NS quotes (can't remember the authors of the top of my head):

"The IRA and UDF are not terrorist organizations"

and

"Fish are not animals"

:p

...so, it IS a religion, but at the same time, it's NOT a religion. Mmmkay. :)
:p

No, wait, it's based on a paradox so, it must be a religion, Q.E.D. :)

And yes, I'm fully aware that I'm making myself a target by trying to inject a little levity into this thread.

I like to think that I part of me will live on through my children.

It being that it is by definition impossible to actually experience death, I'm going to stick with what I know and enjoy life for as long as I can.

Hmm...interesting...but a few things.

1) The apple indeed has a gravitational field, all massive things do, however feeble it is. The word massive refers to anything with mass, not just the big stuff.

2)From my reading of Einstein it appears that Einstein would support the argument that the Earth moves toward the apple. When the apple is in free fall, ignoring the effects air (I.E. Lets talk about this in a vaccum, Lets say the experiment it performed on say the Moon.), the apple has no way to determin if it is moving. It feels no forces on it. Because of that the Apple has the ability to declare itself stationary and the Moon actually moves to it alon it's Grav Feild lines.

3)When I said that perhaps atoms were doubling in size, I didn't mean to limit it just to the action of things falling, that would be remiss. The atoms would double constantly, since the beginning of time, instantly around the universe. Now It might take me a bit, maybe you did in fact refute the argument, I'm not sure, I'll have to think about it more. But it feels like if everything increased at the same rate, the phenomonon you described should not be observed.

1. ok.

2. Okay, in a free fall in vaccum, you have a point, the apple has no way of telling if it is indeed moving, or if other celestial bodies are moving towards it. But that would only be if we did that in space and if we let the apple determine how everything was moving around it. By observing as an outside force, the experimenters would not only take not of the apple and the moon but of other bodies in the immediate area. So, we could say the apple was moving towards the moon since another body, say you or me, or even a rock, was not moving towards the apple. If the apple exerted the gravitational pull on the moon and moved the moon towards it, would other objects in the area not also move towards the apple ?

3. Lets give you the fact that every atom in the universe doubles in size, instantly. Now, lets look at that in relation to the rest of the universe. We have the celestial bodies such as earth, the moon, jupiter etc. . . as well as asteroids, dust, garbage. Everything in space. However, there are also large amounts of pure vaccum. Nothing, absolutly nothing is there. Now, assuming that all atoms are doubling is size constantly, we would apparently never notice the affect of the earth moving towards the apple or us moving towards the earth. What we would notice however, is our planet crashing into Mars. The Earth and Mars both expand exponentially, and all the 'empty' space inbetween gets filled up. After that space is filled up, then the planets collide. I think people would notice that.

..............Lets give you the fact that every atom in the universe doubles in size, instantly. Now, lets look at that in relation to the rest of the universe. We have the celestial bodies such as earth, the moon, jupiter etc. . . ........However, there are also large amounts of pure vaccum. Nothing, absolutly nothing is there. Now, assuming that all atoms are doubling is size constantly, we would apparently never notice the affect of the earth moving towards the apple or us moving towards the earth. What we would notice however, is our planet crashing into Mars. The Earth and Mars both expand exponentially, and all the 'empty' space inbetween gets filled up. After that space is filled up, then the planets collide. I think people would notice that.

Yep, you cannot argue with that!

I'm no physicist, but doesn't the vacuum of space contain atoms too? I always thought space did have an atmosphere, albeit a very thin (to the point of being nonexistant) one. Please correct me if I am wrong...

Atheism is the fastest growing mindset in western society, one that gives permission to have no consious about sin or feel no guilt for it, its a very attractive concept for people who want to feel no responsibility for their actions or thoughts.
You too can be guilt free by simply choosing not to believe in a God or an afterlife.

Obviously this person has no knowledge or interest in history or current affairs.

Just look at how many wars are started by Atheists, as opposed to religious fanatics!

Are you even part of Western society? Have you never heard of a little thing called the Enlightenment?

If it wasn't for the rational free-thinking atheists and moderates of this movement we'd probably still be living as peasants in Feudal societies run by
tyrants and going on religious crusades to kill non-believers every few years.

I do not need a god to tell me that killing and hurting others is wrong, that should be self evident.

It is only those with a weak morality that need a god to fear to stop them doing immoral things.

1. ok.

2. Okay, in a free fall in vaccum, you have a point, the apple has no way of telling if it is indeed moving, or if other celestial bodies are moving towards it. But that would only be if we did that in space and if we let the apple determine how everything was moving around it. By observing as an outside force, the experimenters would not only take not of the apple and the moon but of other bodies in the immediate area. So, we could say the apple was moving towards the moon since another body, say you or me, or even a rock, was not moving towards the apple. If the apple exerted the gravitational pull on the moon and moved the moon towards it, would other objects in the area not also move towards the apple ?

3. Lets give you the fact that every atom in the universe doubles in size, instantly. Now, lets look at that in relation to the rest of the universe. We have the celestial bodies such as earth, the moon, jupiter etc. . . as well as asteroids, dust, garbage. Everything in space. However, there are also large amounts of pure vaccum. Nothing, absolutly nothing is there. Now, assuming that all atoms are doubling is size constantly, we would apparently never notice the affect of the earth moving towards the apple or us moving towards the earth. What we would notice however, is our planet crashing into Mars. The Earth and Mars both expand exponentially, and all the 'empty' space inbetween gets filled up. After that space is filled up, then the planets collide. I think people would notice that.

On number 3 there, excellent, excellent point. I think that completely refutes the doubling theory, well done.

Now on to the more interesting stuff. Relativity is fun, isn't it? Ok, first the magnitude of the gravitational force, the strength of the pull between the apple and the Moon is mutual. Remember Newton's 3rd Law and Newton's law of gravitaion. The Apple pulls the Moon up with the same force that the Moon pulls the apple down. Now for why other celestial bodies don't move toward the apple: Well the do, but they're at such a distance that the force is so weak that it's negligible. Why don't the observers or the rocks move? Agian, they do, but in this case the masses involved are so small that it is again negligible. So to answer the question of do the other objects move toward the apple, the answer is yes but their moment is so small that it's negligible but non-zero.

I'm no physicist, but doesn't the vacuum of space contain atoms too? I always thought space did have an atmosphere, albeit a very thin (to the point of being nonexistant) one. Please correct me if I am wrong...

No space doesn't have an atmosphere, but the term 'vaccum' can be a little misleading. Space is really really empty, but yes in every cubic meter of interplanetary and interstellar and intergalactic space, you wouldn't be suprised to find a few random hydrogen and helium atoms. When I say a few I mean a like 1 or 2 atoms, esspecially on the intergalactic scale. In Interplanety space you might find a lot more (much less than what you could ever consider to be atmospheric) because of the way the Sun spews junk off all the time.

As an Atheist, I am comfortable with the idea of death. I think that when I die, I'll be at rest and that is that. I'd rather live my life the way I choose and accept death as a another step, then to dwell and wonder where I'll end up after that.

Now on to the more interesting stuff. Relativity is fun, isn't it? Ok, first the magnitude of the gravitational force, the strength of the pull between the apple and the Moon is mutual. Remember Newton's 3rd Law and Newton's law of gravitaion. The Apple pulls the Moon up with the same force that the Moon pulls the apple down. Now for why other celestial bodies don't move toward the apple: Well the do, but they're at such a distance that the force is so weak that it's negligible. Why don't the observers or the rocks move? Agian, they do, but in this case the masses involved are so small that it is again negligible. So to answer the question of do the other objects move toward the apple, the answer is yes but their moment is so small that it's negligible but non-zero.


Alright, so the apple has a gravitational field, but its effect is so small that it creates a near-zero pull. Lets place this on earth now. The earth has a large gravitational pull, several million times more powerful than that of the apple. When these two forces meet, wouldn't the earth's much stonger pull eliminate the pull of the apple by just negating it through sheer force?

If we compared it to two wrestlers, one would be a 200 pound sheer block of muscle taking on a 100 pound person with no muscle at all. Yes, the 100 lb guy does have a 'pull' but doesn't the 200 lb guy dominate him so completely that the 100 lb guy exerts no force on the 200 lb guy?

Alright, so the apple has a gravitational field, but its effect is so small that it creates a near-zero pull. Lets place this on earth now. The earth has a large gravitational pull, several million times more powerful than that of the apple. When these two forces meet, wouldn't the earth's much stonger pull eliminate the pull of the apple by just negating it through sheer force?

If we compared it to two wrestlers, one would be a 200 pound sheer block of muscle taking on a 100 pound person with no muscle at all. Yes, the 100 lb guy does have a 'pull' but doesn't the 200 lb guy dominate him so completely that the 100 lb guy exerts no force on the 200 lb guy?

No, because the force has no prefernce for direction.
F=(Gm1m2)/r^2
The only note on that formula is that the force is attractive. It says nothing one body pulling the other. And when you apply Newton's Third Law ("For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction") You arrive at the conclusion that the Force with which the Earth pulls the apple down is exactly the same in magnitude as the force with which the apple pulls the Earth up.

The idea wasn't that the pull from the Apple is near-zero, but that the mutual force between the apple and the rocks, observers, and celestial bodies was near-zero, while the mutual force between the moon and the apple was significant.

The reason the apple moves so much and the Earth so little is because of Newton's Law:
F=ma
The apple having little mass (relatively speaking) must then have a greater acceleration, while the Earth with much mass has very little accelration. But the point is, they both have acceleration.

No, because the force has no prefernce for direction.

The only note on that formula is that the force is attractive. It says nothing one body pulling the other. And when you apply Newton's Third Law ("For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction") You arrive at the conclusion that the Force with which the Earth pulls the apple down is exactly the same in magnitude as the force with which the apple pulls the Earth up.

The idea wasn't that the pull from the Apple is near-zero, but that the mutual force between the apple and the rocks, observers, and celestial bodies was near-zero, while the mutual force between the moon and the apple was significant.

The reason the apple moves so much and the Earth so little is because of Newton's Law:

The apple having little mass (relatively speaking) must then have a greater acceleration, while the Earth with much mass has very little accelration. But the point is, they both have acceleration.

I think you nailed it down, good point.

how do you explain near-death experiences then?

Delusions of a dying brain desperately trying to make sense of the mangled information it is receiving.

The only proof for the existence of the divine, that I have ever found is in the minds of others.

As to what happens when we die? It's merely the cessation of life as we understand or indeed know it. In other words, oblivion.

Prove it.

1. ok.

2. Okay, in a free fall in vaccum, you have a point, the apple has no way of telling if it is indeed moving, or if other celestial bodies are moving towards it. But that would only be if we did that in space and if we let the apple determine how everything was moving around it. By observing as an outside force, the experimenters would not only take not of the apple and the moon but of other bodies in the immediate area. So, we could say the apple was moving towards the moon since another body, say you or me, or even a rock, was not moving towards the apple. If the apple exerted the gravitational pull on the moon and moved the moon towards it, would other objects in the area not also move towards the apple ?

3. Lets give you the fact that every atom in the universe doubles in size, instantly. Now, lets look at that in relation to the rest of the universe. We have the celestial bodies such as earth, the moon, jupiter etc. . . as well as asteroids, dust, garbage. Everything in space. However, there are also large amounts of pure vaccum. Nothing, absolutly nothing is there. Now, assuming that all atoms are doubling is size constantly, we would apparently never notice the affect of the earth moving towards the apple or us moving towards the earth. What we would notice however, is our planet crashing into Mars. The Earth and Mars both expand exponentially, and all the 'empty' space inbetween gets filled up. After that space is filled up, then the planets collide. I think people would notice that.

In response to 2;

Perhaps the apple does not fall to Earth, and the Earth doesn't fall to the apple. How do we know which is falling? We don't really have anything to compare it to to tell us that it is falling. Could it be that they just come together?

I don't know. Nobody really knows. People beleive things, but they don't know. Nobody knows.

I am an athiest and I have this to say:
Athieism is not narrow minded. You don't have to believe blindly in something that seems like such a load of crap to be open minded. I am open minded, open to new ideas, and I don't just block out everything I can't explain with science. That would be stupid. But I'm not just going to believe that there's some god up there keeping an eye on us just because somebody says so. Even if there was a god there would be no way to know (and thinking we do know everything about any god is very arrogant) so we might as well just say, "oh well, who knows, I guess if heaven or hell exists I'll find out when I die" and just get on with our lives. A lot of religious people think they know everything about god, what he wants you to do and if he has some grand plan for us all. Who are they to think they know this? They just heard it from their parents, who heard it from their parents, etc etc all the way back to some cavemen who thought that the earth was flat and the sun was a dung beetle that crawled across the sky. The only difference between the existence of god and those other two theories I just mentioned is that the existence of god can't be proven right or wrong.

So I say, just follow the principle of occam's razor (the simplest explaination is the most likely, i.e. religion is bollocks) and follow the hypothesis that god doesn't exist and if he does, he surely won't throw you into hell just for taking the common sense view. Just live life, have fun, be a good person and whatever is supposed to happen will happen.

Or don't. Whichever you like, I don't really care.

Oh and about the dying thing: Who cares? Really, it happens to everyone, it's just what happens after you live, how bad can it really be? I don't care about dying, as long as I get to do all the thing I want in my life, like have good friends and travel and have some lucid dreams and be happy. There's nothing wrong with not having an afterlife. Seriously! Religious people are always like, "there can't just be nothing after you die!" But why not? Life's good, what more do you need? If people's souls or whatever never died but just went to some afterlife, the universe would just get really really crowded.

I didn't read all of this thread but I saw someone say this:
"Perhaps the apple does not fall to Earth, and the Earth doesn't fall to the apple. How do we know which is falling? We don't really have anything to compare it to to tell us that it is falling. Could it be that they just come together?"
The earth has much much much more mass and therefore the apple would move because it can be moved so very much more easily. I suppose the earth theoretically moves a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit too. But not enough to ever be noticable.

[QUOTE=Carthage and Troy]Obviously this person has no knowledge or interest in history or current affairs.

Just look at how many wars are started by Atheists, as opposed to religious fanatics!

Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin - both Athiests, while Stalin didnt start a huge war, he sure killed alot of people.
Um.. who hasnt any knowledge of history?

Are you even part of Western society? Have you never heard of a little thing called the Enlightenment?

Yes it followed the dark ages in post medieval history, thus giving it its name, to simplify it for you dark ages- enlightenment.

If it wasn't for the rational free-thinking atheists and moderates of this movement we'd probably still be living as peasants in Feudal societies run by
tyrants and going on religious crusades to kill non-believers every few years.

You really dribble some shit you know that, inventors and scientists sich as Da Vinci, Galileo and Newton were very religous.
Darwin himself became a Christian just before he died, something that alot of evolutionists and athiests dont like to talk about.

I do not need a god to tell me that killing and hurting others is wrong, that should be self evident.

Yet most of our laws in western society are based on the ten commandments.



It is only those with a weak morality that need a god to fear to stop them doing immoral things.

So your saying all Athiests are pure as the driven snow because they dont believe in a God or some form of higher power.

[B]
Yet most of our laws in western society are based on the ten commandments.

really? i count only three of the ten commandments as appearing ANYWHERE, in any form, in American law, and those three rules are pretty much present in every religious morality i can think of. i'm not as familiar with the legal systems of other western nations, but i don't remember honoring thy parents or not making graven images being a part of other western legal systems. it seems like laws against murder, theft, and bearing false witness are the only ones the western world gives a damn about, and 30% is failing in any class i've ever taken.

In response to 2;

Perhaps the apple does not fall to Earth, and the Earth doesn't fall to the apple. How do we know which is falling? We don't really have anything to compare it to to tell us that it is falling. Could it be that they just come together?

The truth is both the apple and the earth are falling along curavtures in spacetime. Both are falling, not just one or the other. And we do have something to compare it to because Spacetime is absolute (I.E. We have a bench mark in spacetime).

really? i count only three of the ten commandments as appearing ANYWHERE, in any form, in American law, and those three rules are pretty much present in every religious morality i can think of. i'm not as familiar with the legal systems of other western nations, but i don't remember honoring thy parents or not making graven images being a part of other western legal systems. it seems like laws against murder, theft, and bearing false witness are the only ones the western world gives a damn about, and 30% is failing in any class i've ever taken.

Fair point.
I dont have much time anyway these days for what the Legal system we have in Australia now thinks is morally right.
Its more concerened with legalitys and fear of discrimination than justice.

Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin - both Athiests, while Stalin didnt start a huge war, he sure killed alot of people.
Um.. who hasnt any knowledge of history?

Adolf Hitler was a devout Catholic.

Yet most of our laws in western society are based on the ten commandments.

No, they're not.

Darwin himself became a Christian just before he died, something that alot of evolutionists and athiests dont like to talk about.


It's not talked about because that didn't happen./ The whole story passed around fundie christian circles about Darwin's deathbed discantation of evolution has long since been disproven and falsified. Darwin never denounced evolution, nor did he become christian right before he died. You should really try researching sometime; you'd be surprised what you might learn.

It’s funny. Occam’s Razor and the principle of parsimony (“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” meaning “plurality should not be posited without necessity”) keep getting tossed around in these threads as a reason not to believe in God. The funny part is that Occam himself never applied the principle of unnecessary plurality towards the existence of God.

His contention was that God or divinity was only ever known to us through revelation. God, according to Occam, is unknowable by natural reason. He never used the common ideal that bears his name to negate the spiritual world or, indeed, God.

It’s funny. Occam’s Razor and the principle of parsimony (“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” meaning “plurality should not be posited without necessity”) keep getting tossed around in these threads as a reason not to believe in God. The funny part is that Occam himself never applied the principle of unnecessary plurality towards the existence of God.

His contention was that God or divinity was only ever known to us through revelation. God, according to Occam, is unknowable by natural reason. He never used the common ideal that bears his name to negate the spiritual world or, indeed, God.

He used it to prove that those who believe in a deity / deities do so by faith alone, being as logical support for an omnipotent, mysterious deity is just an 'unnecessary term' in any given explanation. Thus, Parsimony proves God is unnecessary, not necessarily that such a creature doesn't exist.

He used it to prove that those who believe in a deity / deities do so by faith alone, being as logical support for an omnipotent, mysterious deity is just an 'unnecessary term' in any given explanation. Thus, Parsimony proves God is unnecessary, not necessarily that such a creature doesn't exist.

From a scientific perspective, yes. Occam functioned under the belief, though, that science and religion are two entirely different things and one can't be used to substantiate the other. Hence, while the addition of God to a scientific scenario may indeed be ruled out as an unnecessary plurality, that was well and good because it shouldn't have been there in the first place, just as it is preposterous for science to expect to prove or disprove the existance of God.

Parsimony was never applied to religious faith by Occam, a devout theist, because it was futile as all knowledge of divinity stems from revelation, not reason. Mostly, Occam was reacting to the Scholastics like Aquinas who sought to make religious belief more "scientific," a notion which didn't sit well at all with Occam.

Just to put in my two cents about dying, amongst other things;

Atheists believe (most of us, anyway) that before death, one should try to make a difference in the world. Raise some kids, save a guy from a burning building, cure some disease, make your passage in history, try not to murder your in-laws, or something to the like. Religious people do the same, but they are constantly being shoved and pushed along by the threat that if they do evil instead of good with their mortal influence, they get sent to this firery pit of doom after they're buried six feet under.

Atheists don't need a book to live by because we're born and raised with social morals. That's just how we are. What boggles me is that some people need a thick tome to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Isn't your brain supposed to do that for you? Some would argue that atheist mass-murderers and malicious hackers don't think they need a book and then go on to do these things because it's what THEY think is right. But these people are very sick in the first place. Just like Hitler the Catholic and David the Davidian. Sick people are everywhere. Atheism and Religion shouldn't blame each other for them.

As for evolution. That happened. That OBVIOUSLY happened. We've got old rocks with petrified bones in them to prove it. As for the Garden of Eden? Whoever made that up (I'm not gonna say 'Jesus' here, cause I'm not sure if he was the one who made up the entire bible or not) must've been one elusive writer. If Eden DID exist, and WAS never to be found again by man, then we have no way of proving that it exists or not. It'd be all in your head. That's what religion is. All in your head.

Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin - both Athiests, while Stalin didnt start a huge war, he sure killed alot of people.
Um.. who hasnt any knowledge of history?

"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Chapter 2.


For Stalin, religion was a threat to his power, just like all the other communist leaders he had killed. He did not walk around stating "You must die, solely in the name of Atheism." People do not crash planes into buildings due to their lack of belief.

The fact is, calling someone an atheist doesn't really tell you what they really are. It only tells you what they are not. Athiests are only linked by their lack of belief in God(s), atheism has nothing to do with morality. An atheist has the freedom to choose their own moral code.

I question Christian morality. "Do this because I say some magical being said so.

P.S. If you don't, he said he'd roast you good."

Why do Christians hate humanity so much? Why do they think humans are evil and sinful by nature? Why do they think humans cannot be good without the threat of eternal torment?

On death:
"All good things must come to an end."

I'm more concerned with living than dying.

Adolf hitler wasn't an atheist... he was catholic, he believed in the catholic god....

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”

( Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507. )


“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933. )



“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”

( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 562. )


“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65. )

i can imagine that, sure. unfortunately, that is not the way the English language opperates, nor is it the way those terms are used. you're asking me to play make-believe, and i am asking you to abide by the rules of language. you can't just redefine terms to suit your purpose. give up this line of assertion, you're not making any progress because you haven't a leg to stand on.

No, you'll find that my definitions hold true.
Religion is a belief IN something, not a belief THAT something.
Common usage of the terms 'belive IN' and believe THAT' has caused a certain amount of confusion and unofficial ambiguity and to a certain extent synonimity between the two.
Regardless, the two concepts are different ones.
Believe THAT is synonymous with 'think that' whereas believe IN is synonymous with 'have faith in'.
The difference lies in the companion word, not the word 'believe' itself and the conceptual difference is that 'believe THAT' is testable whereas 'believe IN' is not. Therefore if you believe THAT you can fly then you can test it whereas if you believe IN God then you cannot scientifically test that.

Regardless of terms, atheism is hard to define as a religion. While it has a belief in there being no higher being, the word 'religion' refers to a belief system where a diety is present. Thus when a diety is lacking it is better defined as a philosophy. Many Buddhists define Buddhism as a philosophy more than a religion because it lacks a diety.
Mostly however, this is simply a linguistical difference based on definitions. In terms of human conceptualisations, it is hard to define anything because of the very nature of concepts.

Fine, I believe in my microwave's ability to heat things. Happy?

Fine, I believe in my microwave's ability to heat things. Happy?

And there's another minor difference.
There you state that you believe in an ability, not in an object.
You believe in the ability to heat, you do not believe in the microwave itself.
You also cannot believe in the microwave itself because you have proof of it and belief requires lack of hard evidence.

It's not talked about because that didn't happen./ The whole story passed around fundie christian circles about Darwin's deathbed discantation of evolution has long since been disproven and falsified. Darwin never denounced evolution, nor did he become christian right before he died. You should really try researching sometime; you'd be surprised what you might learn.

How was this disproven?

Disproven by who exactly?

Falsified, Id say so.

You also cannot believe in the microwave itself because you have proof of it and belief requires lack of hard evidence.
wrong, you're making up your own definitions again.

belief is:

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

nowhere in that does it say that belief requires a lack of evidence. what you are thinking of is FAITH, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

It's not talked about because that didn't happen./ The whole story passed around fundie christian circles about Darwin's deathbed discantation of evolution has long since been disproven and falsified. Darwin never denounced evolution, nor did he become christian right before he died. You should really try researching sometime; you'd be surprised what you might learn.

Still asking for some proof of that statement Chikyota, I asked for it five days ago, you must be still 'researching' right?

Still asking for some proof of that statement Chikyota, I asked for it five days ago, you must be still 'researching' right?

"Charles's daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, 'I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . The whole story has no foundation whatever".

"Moore... points out that her published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies—Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people."

"It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did. It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant..."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp[/url]

OK my apologys then.

OK my apologys then.

In all fairness, since Chikyota (?) made the claim, she (he?) should have been the one to provide proof... but she (he?) seems to be notable by absence...

so many people are living without hope nowadays. taking revenge is one of the indicators of that. if they know that all will be judged one day, and phsyical death is not the end of everything, a lot of people will be happier and less hate crimes and suicides will occur.

Before I respond, I would like to clarify my position.

I am technically atheistic. Though I have my notions of Divinity, I do not believe in a deity of any kind.

Death is a natural extension of life. What is born, dies, and its material being re-absorbed into the biosphere in which it exists. Life, like all other things in the universe, finds a perpetual, ordered balance in the chaos of entropy. This is my perception of death. As a living thing, I am no exception.

But you really mean to ask is how do I feel about dying when I do not believe in an afterlife, or salvation, or divine punishment. Honestly, I don't know. I recognize I could be wrong in my aetheism. As other users have correctly posted, it is not a religion. It is, however, a leap of faith. I have faith in the non-existence of God. Deists have faith in Its existence. I have no logical claim to my position other than my belief that the modern perception of the singular omnipresent deity is a construct. But this is, after all, only a belief.

I tend to reckon that if there is no hereafter, then I'll never know. The end of my existence will be utter oblivion, slipping into a state of unconsciousness from which there is no perception, no understanding, no I or Thou....no mind. In such a state, I would not be able to perceive oblivion, or contemplate being after mortality and thus be able to answer the question of what is life after death. If there is God, and there is an afterlife, and I am proven wrong, then I suppose that a just and loving God would forgive me for my human limitation. For doubting. The Creator did, after all, endow me with free will, and no just God would make a people that can doubt only to punish them for it when they do. If I had a God, It would not be a sadist. But I digress, if there is a God and a hereafter, then I will know when I die. If there isn't, then I will never know.

When I die, what is uniquely me will be forever lost, but what I am composed of will not be. In this sense, I tend to think of life as whirlpools in a vast ocean. You can point to them and say "that's a whirlpool" untill the water that they are composed of is no longer animate and reverts and is once again a part of the placid whole. In this sense, the world constructed me of itself, and endowed me with the spark of life, and so I am. When the spark ceases and I am no longer, I will be as I was before....a part of the world. For now, I understand this in material terms, though the more I meditate on it, the more I begin to ponder this possibility in metaphysical terms. Though this could just be wishful thinking. As such, I must live my life here and now. Ultimately, my limited perceptions and confusion on this issue force me to enjoy what is before me and breath deeply of life while I still can, unconcerned with what happens next. I think this is fundamental to the human condition, regardless of how you try to reconcile your desire for permanence with your own mortality.

hey. I don't know how many people live in wellington or get the dominon post or anything, but yesterday (monday) there was this big protest by the destiny church (to be honest, they're pretty jonestown) about the civil unions bill which parliament has been playing around with for a while. basically this bill, if passed, will make it legal for homosexuals to enter a civil union - like marriage, but without the God bit (i think, correct me if i'm wrong).

This 'church' got around 7,500 protesters outside the beehive and bitched and moaned about the immorality of the civil unions bill saying this would send people to hell. I don't know about anyone else (disregard the paper describing it as nazism) but how do these ignorant pricks justify their behaviour? I'm not exactly sitting in queue for a same-sex marriage, but as a straight guy, i found this prostesting purely repugnant.

Frankly, if i was to go to hell because i didn't follow some interpretation of the bible or whatever, why is it some bacchic-like church's business?

oh, and Terminalia (if that's how you spell it), you should go and sit in on some politics and philosophy lectures when you've got some time. It would really do your arguments a favour.

In all fairness, since Chikyota (?) made the claim, she (he?) should have been the one to provide proof... but she (he?) seems to be notable by absence...

Id say Chiyotas a she, and providing the proof would have been a nice gesture, so unless she was absent from this website for a reason, Id say she was just passing on overheard information without the necessary details.
If she says I should have looked it up myself, I'll cop that sweet, because to be honest I couldnt be bothered.

so many people are living without hope nowadays. taking revenge is one of the indicators of that. if they know that all will be judged one day, and phsyical death is not the end of everything, a lot of people will be happier and less hate crimes and suicides will occur.

Surely, if physical death is a mere inconvenience in the scheme of things, then the revenge thing is fine... I mean, if they kill someone, it doesn't really matter, right? Because death is not the end?

[QUOTE=Spak Spak Spak
oh, and Terminalia (if that's how you spell it), you should go and sit in on some politics and philosophy lectures when you've got some time. It would really do your arguments a favour.[/QUOTE]

Yeah well, a couple of days lessons with grammer could probably help you a lot too.
Thats 'could' do your arguements a favour.
And what lectures do you recommend most spakie?
Being seen a right wing Bush lover myself in favour of hetero marrige rights only, the right to bear arms, capital and corperal punishment, cant stand PC and also extremely Catholic as well, do you advise me to question these lecturers about anything, or just wisely nod my head and pretend to agree and play it safe?

i am an athiest and am not scared of death
in my opinion belief in an afterlife is for those who are scaredof death, or lack a scientific enough mind to realise..
and any bull about people dieing and returning to life won't wash...they cannot have been actually dead could they?

I like to quote John Lennon...

God is a concept, by which we measure our pain.

We are as human beings like children, that are afraid in the dark.
We know we die, and don't understand the true meaning of it.
The motor of life is death.

Suppose we wouldn't die of natural causes..
We would be crushed by a big truck or train anyway, wouldn't we?
Or nobody would walk out after a plan crash?
The fysical body can't stand those forces involved.

So what would happen, if we would live ever after?
We wouldn't dare to walk on the streets any more, swimming could kill you, because you still could drown..
So nobody would swim anymore.
Get the picture?

Mankind would die, the moment man as an individual would be immortal.

And don't forget the agnostics, that don't say there is no afterlife, they just say that they don't know it.
I am such an agnostic. And really, I don't care.
In my eyes heaven must be quite boring, if you ask me.. ;)
I feel more for a Valhalla.. )(:-)

[QUOTE=Dacowookies]i am an athiest and am not scared of death
in my opinion belief in an afterlife is for those who are scaredof death, or lack a scientific enough mind to realise..

Im religous and Im not really shitting myself about death either.

OK scientific mind prove using science that there is no afterlife then.
You cant can you.
Also being a scientific mind that of course knows so much, could you please tell me what was around before the big bang?

and any bull about people dieing and returning to life won't wash...they cannot have been actually dead could they?

So your saying the thousands of accounts of people almost dying for good, and leaving their bodys and approaching a white light of some sort are all a mass lie fabricated through history.

[QUOTE=Dacowookies]i am an athiest and am not scared of death
in my opinion belief in an afterlife is for those who are scaredof death, or lack a scientific enough mind to realise..

Im religous and Im not really shitting myself about death either.

OK scientific mind prove using science that there is no afterlife then.
You cant can you.
Also being a scientific mind that of course knows so much, could you please tell me what was around before the big bang?

and any bull about people dieing and returning to life won't wash...they cannot have been actually dead could they?

So your saying the thousands of accounts of people almost dying for good, and leaving their bodys and approaching a white light of some sort are all a mass lie fabricated through history.

Why would a scientist 'prove' that there is an afterlife, or otherwise?

It is not science that claims, god, the devil, heaven, hell and damnation... science claims to be able to tell that, if an apple falls off a branch, it will probably fall until it hits something.

There is no EVIDENCE for afterlife, so science cannot make a case either way - but it can 'suspect' that there is no afterlife - because there is no evidence.

The Big Bang is only one of several theories... and there are divisions about what was there before it.

And the accounts of white lights, tunnels, etc as far as afterlives go... are all explicable by brain-chemistry in the dying body - the random misfires of the brain, and the deterioration of brain-chemicals. It's not a "Lie"... it's just a superstitious explanation for something. A thousand years ago, doctors knew that the body lost ehat through the head, but they also 'knew' that feelings and consciousness were housed in the heart... so they came up with the explanation that the brain was used for cooling the blood. Superstition can convince some people of anything...

oh, and Terminalia (if that's how you spell it), you should go and sit in on some politics and philosophy lectures when you've got some time. It would really do your arguments a favour.

Yeah well, a couple of days lessons with grammer could probably help you a lot too.
Thats 'could' do your arguements a favour.
And what lectures do you recommend most spakie?
This next bit caught my eye so I figured I may as well offer a few rebuttles.

Being seen a right wing Bush lover myself in favour of hetero marrige rights only
I won't bother saying to much about Bush since everyone knows he is like Satan except dumber. I don't see why gay people can't have civil unions (wouldn't even be a church thing), it's just 2 people who want to be a couple. What's wrong with that? (And I know you're thinking "what's wrong with that is that they do each other in the brown", but who really cares what they do in the privacy of their own homes? They'll do it anyway, and it's not like you have to watch it.)

the right to bear arms, capital and corperal punishment,
But bears need their arms for their daily survival! Seriously though, the "right to bear arms" is a load of old shit, if there were no guns people wouldn't need guns to protect themselves. There would be no armed robberies or any of that crap. Why do you think people in America get shot so much? Guns, and the media constantly feeding everyone the same old shit about people getting shot and kidnapped to keep everyone in a state of fear to make money for gun companies. Capital punishment is a bit of a grey area for me, mainly because of the terrible risk of executing innocent people which happens all the time in America. It's just not worth the risk, even though some people just deserve to die. It can be an effective system though. The ancient aboriginals used to kill anyone in the tribe who broke the rules. It kept them in line.

cant stand PC
Fair enough. I hate it when people get all hysterical because someone called a spade a spade.

and also extremely Catholic as well, do you advise me to question these lecturers about anything, or just wisely nod my head and pretend to agree and play it safe?
Just pay attention.

What I think about death... about the same thing that Socrates thought...

Best case scenario: I go in an afterlife where I will be able to be a polemic forever and ever with Angels, God or anyone up there (or down there afterall >_<)

Worse case scenario: Im dead... can't complain about it...

Why must I fear it?

and i find life a lot more scary than the thought of death, at least i'll get a good sleep...and as for an afterlife?..maybe i'll have ectoplasm on me face..

Atheism simply means "without god(s)"

from greek...

A-without
theos-Gods

It has nothing to do with refusing to believe in things we cant see or touch..and it certainly isnt "stupid and pointless"(Christianity has that area covered...)


There are none blinder than those who seek answers on their knees..with their eyes closed.

Go home to mommy and stop acting like a little brat you annoying little punk!


So exactly what religion is it that you espouse? Simply so that anyone still trying to decide can be forwarned as to what to avoid.

i dont really call myself an atheist, because as far as the technical definition goes, i'm dead against it. i believe that as human beings became more intelligent and conciose of the fact that they would eventually die, the only way people could reassure themselves that they would not die was that there was a place after earth. in a way, its people believing that they are so important thier lives should never end.

Religion has, since its begining, been used as a control by those who believe that thier ways are greater than others. this is less so in modern times, with increasingly liberal stances in religion, with religion becoming more of a celebration of life than a threat of damnation to all who slip up or fail to meet the guidlines set by others. this is a GOOD thing.

so what does a person like me 'believe'? nothing and everything. i dont deny the existance of a god or gods. i dont really care what happens after death, but i sure dont think thought about death should take up one iota of ones life. i believe in evolution, but dont really care about how any of it started, or why, just that it happened, and i'm here, and i'm loving it. if there is some sort of afterlife, then great, i'm all for it, i think it would be great. but i dont choose to believe in something that noone can be sure about.

simply put, i'm a 'Non Believer'. i dont go out there and say things are wrong, i just accept other peoples beliefs and move on with my life.

OK scientific mind prove using science that there is no afterlife then.
You cant can you.
Also being a scientific mind that of course knows so much, could you please tell me what was around before the big bang?

That is logically impossible as you are asking him to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who assert the positive. That means, you have to prove that there is an afterlife. In the absence of any evidence or any effect indicating an afterlife, we just assume there isn't one.

According to scientific theory, all matter was compressed into a singularity before the Big Bang or whatever it was that started our universe's expansion.

atheïsm idd means u don't believe in a god, I'm sure there's another word for people who want proof for everything they believe in.. but I doubt all atheïsts are like that

but also it's stupid to believe in afterlife before knowing just because some stupid person whatever tells u to.. but it's also stupid to say that there surely isn't anything after it.. it's actually also stupid to think about it because u'll never be able to prove either.. so let's all just hush about it and wait till it's time :P

atheïsm means not caring about what's going to happen next, for all you know it's nothing, so the best is to live ur life to the max right here and right now

[QUOTE=Autonomous City-states]That is logically impossible as you are asking him to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who assert the positive. That means, you have to prove that there is an afterlife. In the absence of any evidence or any effect indicating an afterlife, we just assume there isn't one.

But the Aethiests are just as venent in your declaration of no afterlife, so you could say the onus is on you guys just as much to disprove its existance.

Anyone remember Flatliners?


According to scientific theory, all matter was compressed into a singularity before the Big Bang or whatever it was that started our universe's expansion.

Yes and they will also probably be laughing at this quaint little theory in 500 years time in pretty much the the same way we laugh at medieval people believing the world was flat, is there really that much difference between science and religon when we dont know the answers,its just guesstimation.

What I think about death... about the same thing that Socrates thought...

Best case scenario: I go in an afterlife where I will be able to be a polemic forever and ever with Angels, God or anyone up there (or down there afterall >_<)

Worse case scenario: Im dead... can't complain about it...

Why must I fear it?

Because you could go burn in hell.
Anyone hear about the radiowave they put through the Earth and the reciever picked up screams coming from the interior?

[QUOTE=Autonomous City-states]That is logically impossible as you are asking him to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who assert the positive. That means, you have to prove that there is an afterlife. In the absence of any evidence or any effect indicating an afterlife, we just assume there isn't one.

But the Aethiests are just as venent in your declaration of no afterlife, so you could say the onus is on you guys just as much to disprove its existance.

Anyone remember Flatliners?


Not believing in an afterlife is not quite the same thing... do I believe in Heaven? No. Do I believe in Hell? No. Do I believe there is anything after this? Maybe, but probably no...

The important question is... was any of the heaven, hell or afterlife stuff my idea? The answer: No.

Someone else put forward those ideas, and I see no reason to believe in them, since I see no evidence for any of them. The burden of proof isn't mine for NOT believing in someone else's fantasy.


According to scientific theory, all matter was compressed into a singularity before the Big Bang or whatever it was that started our universe's expansion.

Yes and they will also probably be laughing at this quaint little theory in 500 years time in pretty much the the same way we laugh at medieval people believing the world was flat, is there really that much difference between science and religon when we dont know the answers,its just guesstimation.

Many already laugh at this 'quaint little theory'. And the difference between science and religion is that: science tries to explain by observation and conclusions that are based in the natural world - while religion tries to explain by conclusions based in the 'supernatural' world.

ANd I don't believe in that 'supernature', either - but it isn't my burden of proof to discredit it... those who espouse it have the onus to prove it.

Because you could go burn in hell.
Anyone hear about the radiowave they put through the Earth and the reciever picked up screams coming from the interior?

Are you insane? Or do you just believe any old hokey crap that hits the tabloids?

[QUOTE=Sloborbia]This next bit caught my eye so I figured I may as well offer a few rebuttles.


I won't bother saying to much about Bush since everyone knows he is like Satan except dumber. I don't see why gay people can't have civil unions (wouldn't even be a church thing), it's just 2 people who want to be a couple. What's wrong with that? (And I know you're thinking "what's wrong with that is that they do each other in the brown", but who really cares what they do in the privacy of their own homes? They'll do it anyway, and it's not like you have to watch it.)

Bush also got to be the most powerful man in the world, so is he really as dumb as you Bushhaters make him out to be?


Marriage was created to bind a man to a woman and vicerverca, not for the same sexes, its just a pointless exercise.
If the Catholic church caves into political pressure and recognises gay marriage, then that will be the end of its credibility.
It will, by not recognising gays rights to marriage create a huge conflict in Society in the near future.


But bears need their arms for their daily survival! Seriously though, the "right to bear arms" is a load of old shit, if there were no guns people wouldn't need guns to protect themselves.

OK would you prefer your attackers to be armed with knives and axes then?
Powertools can be pretty scary as well.
As there is no need to bear arms in our gentle and safe modern society, we will assume then that the crims and gangs think along the same lines as you.

There would be no armed robberies or any of that crap. Why do you think people in America get shot so much? Guns, and the media constantly feeding everyone the same old shit about people getting shot and kidnapped to keep everyone in a state of fear to make money for gun companies.

Now there you go again assuming armed robberys are only limited to firearms.

Dont the Americans have over 2 million crims in jails or institutions for violent or drug related crimes?
San quentin 15,000 inmates right?

Also having a well armed population makes alot of would be invaders think seriously about not invading you, not that the Yanks have any worrys really with all those nukes protecting them, just a thought anyway.

Capital punishment is a bit of a grey area for me, mainly because of the terrible risk of executing innocent people which happens all the time in America. It's just not worth the risk, even though some people just deserve to die. It can be an effective system though. The ancient aboriginals used to kill anyone in the tribe who broke the rules. It kept them in line.

The Americans are pretty careful with that, they have something like nine courts to appeal to each time their case is knocked back, some inmates die waiting.
Personally Im all for capital punishment, and would prefer to see it done in public again, so people can see justice being done, it sure would liven up a dull sunday down at the local mall.

Just pay attention.[/

Now that, is good advice.

Bush also got to be the most powerful man in the world, so is he really as dumb as you Bushhaters make him out to be?


Marriage was created to bind a man to a woman and vicerverca, not for the same sexes, its just a pointless exercise.
If the Catholic church caves into political pressure and recognises gay marriage, then that will be the end of its credibility.
It will, by not recognising gays rights to marriage create a huge conflict in Society in the near future.



Didn't Bush basically get elected because of his family, and his oil connections? Wasn't it family friends with oil money that got him into a senatorial position in the first place, and the Republican party acting in the interests of name and face recognition that got him nominated for President?

Prove to me that marriage was created to bind one man to one woman.

In different cultures, that has not always been the case.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, that has not always been the case.

Refusing gay-marriage is using religion as the justification for withholding rights from individuals. If the government was trying to instill a law that forbade christians from marrying each other, they would be hearing the bitching and whining all the way to Mars - yet that is what is being effectively done to the 'gay population'. They are being refused a basic right because of personal belief.

My 10 cents.
Not all religions are theistic. It is entierly possible to be an atheist and religious.
I am Buddhist. I am either an atheist or an agnostic, depending on how exactly you define godhood.
I highly doubt the existance of the Old Testament God, the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, the old man with the white beard who sits in judgement. On the other hand, if you define god so vaugely as to be meaningless (ie God is everything), I can't really reject it. Hwever it is pretty meaningless.
Anyway, the existance of a god or even gods doesn't really affect me.

As for an afterlife, again it depends on your exact definition.

As I personally see it, the universe is a living organism.
"I" will continue as long as the universe exists.
Physically, my component parts can never be destroyed, due to the laws of conservation.
The affects of my actions will echo through the ages until the end of time and beyond, even if ever so slightly, just as the ripples in a pond never truely dissapear.
Thus, I will live forever, both physically and in affect.
On the otherhand, "I", as a particular ego posting this will, not live forever. But it does not matter, because "I" won't exist once this is posted. I will be a different both in my ego and as an organism.
And ego is an illusion, anyway.

So, if you mean that your particular ego, with all your memories and experience will continue onwards after your biological death, no.
If you mean a soul, I simply don't understand what that means. No one has ever given me a reliable definition of a soul.
If you mean the physical components and affects of ones actions, then yes, I do believe in an afterlife.

Personally Im all for capital punishment, and would prefer to see it done in public again, so people can see justice being done, it sure would liven up a dull sunday down at the local mall.

Wait... Don't right wing Republican Christian gun nuts believe that seeing violence on TV and in video games and hearing it in music makes people go out and kill someone? Wouldn't having public executions be the ultimate version of that? Like some kind of stupid reality TV show gone... Worse?

Announcer> "And here we have our thirteen thousandth execution here at Comerica Park. They're bringing out the condemned now."

Crowd Cheers.

Announcer> "Any last words from the condemned?"

Condemned> "I was born with webbed toes... Like some kind of horrible fish-boy."

Announcer> "Lovely sentiments. Now they're arranging the firing squad. Oh! He's opted for the 'charge the executioners' technique."

Blam... Presumably more than one blam.

Announcer> "Ooo, that one had a lot of blood in him."

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Not believing in an afterlife is not quite the same thing... do I believe in Heaven? No. Do I believe in Hell? No. Do I believe there is anything after this? Maybe, but probably no...

Why be cautious, is that what you really believe, or are you just afraid your scientific friends will think your a nut?

The important question is... was any of the heaven, hell or afterlife stuff my idea? The answer: No.

Of course not, but it doesnt hurt to wonder about it.

Someone else put forward those ideas, and I see no reason to believe in them, since I see no evidence for any of them. The burden of proof isn't mine for NOT believing in someone else's fantasy.

Well you can have the Athiests fantasy of their being nothing after you die, that would be quite safe at present to eschew now, a hundred or more years ago you would have been ridiculed by most people for being an athiest, and seeing as theres nothing as powerful as an idea whos time has come that could maybe happen again to an Athiest in the future, not necessarily you.



Many already laugh at this 'quaint little theory'. And the difference between science and religion is that: science tries to explain by observation and conclusions that are based in the natural world - while religion tries to explain by conclusions based in the 'supernatural' world.

Theres also alot of supernatural stuff that science has no answer for, and most likely never will either.

ANd I don't believe in that 'supernature', either - but it isn't my burden of proof to discredit it... those who espouse it have the onus to prove it.

True its not easy explaining the supernatural to people who think in limited dimensions.
Ill come back to this, its getting late.

Why be cautious, is that what you really believe, or are you just afraid your scientific friends will think your a nut?


Cautious? I assume you mean because I said 'maybe' to the afterlife thing... the reason is that, although the Judeo-Christian model is clearly wishful thinking, and the same is true for the Islamic model, and most of the Classical models - it is possible that there is SOME form of life after death... maybe a Gaian principle, where the energy of the individual somehow retains some consciousness as it returns to the earth. MAYBE. But I don't really buy it.

Well you can have the Athiests fantasy of their being nothing after you die, that would be quite safe at present to eschew now, a hundred or more years ago you would have been ridiculed by most people for being an athiest, and seeing as theres nothing as powerful as an idea whos time has come that could maybe happen again to an Athiest in the future, not necessarily you.

The 'atheist fantasy' you describe isn't fantasy. It is realism. Unless someone can PROVE that there is more after you die, logic dictates that when you end, you end.

A hundred years ago I may have been ridiculed for being Atheist. Where I live now, the same is still true. But the fact is, my decision is made by evidence (or lack of it), and the appliance of logic - so I would still be an Atheist even if everyone else in the whole world was buying into some organised religion.


Theres also alot of supernatural stuff that science has no answer for, and most likely never will either.


No. There isn't, really. Xfiles fans like to think there is. Christians like to think there is, because then they don't sound quite so crazy when they talk about 'demons walking the earth' and snakes that talk.

What supernatural events do you not have the science to explain?

True its not easy explaining the supernatural to people who think in limited dimensions.


I see. Trying to make the use of logic, and the understanding of reality based on observation, into an insult.

You obviously have a very open mind. The danger is that 'open' and 'empty' are such similar concepts.

long john silver's chicken i mean who eats chicken at a fish place honestly some people are retartedd

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Cautious? I assume you mean because I said 'maybe' to the afterlife thing... the reason is that, although the Judeo-Christian model is clearly wishful thinking, and the same is true for the Islamic model, and most of the Classical models - it is possible that there is SOME form of life after death... maybe a Gaian principle, where the energy of the individual somehow retains some consciousness as it returns to the earth. MAYBE. But I don't really buy it.

Sad.

The 'atheist fantasy' you describe isn't fantasy. It is realism. Unless someone can PROVE that there is more after you die, logic dictates that when you end, you end.

Yes.. you probably will.

A hundred years ago I may have been ridiculed for being Atheist. Where I live now, the same is still true. But the fact is, my decision is made by evidence (or lack of it), and the appliance of logic - so I would still be an Atheist even if everyone else in the whole world was buying into some organised religion.

Buying?
Is what your buying any better?



No. There isn't, really. Xfiles fans like to think there is. Christians like to think there is, because then they don't sound quite so crazy when they talk about 'demons walking the earth' and snakes that talk.

They dont think they sound crazy, you do.
I dont believe in talking snakes either, demons are everywhere.

What supernatural events do you not have the science to explain?

Ghosts, and dont say they dont exist because Ive seen and felt them when their around.

You obviously have a very open mind. The danger is that 'open' and 'empty' are such similar concepts.

Thats a very ignorant statement to make, not to mention just plain rude, but I guess you cant help being what you are.

[QUOTE=Riailynne]Wait... Don't right wing Republican Christian gun nuts believe that seeing violence on TV and in video games and hearing it in music makes people go out and kill someone? Wouldn't having public executions be the ultimate version of that? Like some kind of stupid reality TV show gone... Worse?

It probably does have some influence on unstable minds, also if people got a healthy dose of death right up and close, they mighten then think so much of the video games and music celebrating violence and death.

Condemned> "I was born with webbed toes... Like some kind of horrible fish-boy."

Executing someone born deformed is a ridiculous example of the reason why Im for public execution, murderers and rapists, molesters, arsonists, fraud, major assault, like putting an old person into a coma from bashing their skull in etc let them swing.


Announcer> "Lovely sentiments. Now they're arranging the firing squad. Oh! He's opted for the 'charge the executioners' technique."

Blam... Presumably more than one blam.

Bullets could be dangerous to the publics health, just a rope or the good old fashioned guilloteen, both would do the job nicely of removing any unwanted scum.

When I first saw this I thought it was about Atheists Dieting.
That jsut makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, like I've just eaten a kitten.

I like this one, s/hes funny.
I thought a significant part of this whole religion thing was that God gave people free will, and they can therefore choose to believe what they want. Personally I'm thankful for the ability to come up with my own ideas, instead of needing to adhere to some antiquated archaic misogynistic irrelevant dogma that perpetuates hatred and intolerance (and requires lots of adjectives).
But you know, thats just me....... :p
Also, stop butchering the English language, or we'll come and take it back.

.......Marriage was created to bind a man to a woman and vicerverca, not for the same sexes, its just a pointless exercise.
If the Catholic church caves into political pressure and recognises gay marriage, then that will be the end of its credibility.
It will, by not recognising gays rights to marriage create a huge conflict in Society in the near future....

1. The Catholic Church would not have to recognise the marriages. Marriage is not monopolised by Christians. That's why I, an atheist, will be able to get married when I am older. I can go to a registry office and get a marriage license. and all the legal rights associated with a marriage, without having ANYTHING to do with ANY church. Your church disagreeing with someone's sexual preference should have no bearing on their right to marry, any more than your church's opinion on my religious views. But, regardless: your church would not have to recognise a legal homosexual marriage in any way. Only the government would.

2. As it's been mentioned, marriage has not always been 'between man and woman'. In fact, it's only in light of the push for homosexual marriages that states are scrambling to alter the definition. There are already MANY churches/religions willing to perform gay marriage (even some of the more enlightened Christian ones) - it's only the goverment's favouritism that is preventing these marriages from being upheld legally.

And, 3. If you prefer, we could have civil unions for all (including homosexuals), with 'marriage' being a ceremony reserved by churchs - then no church would ever have to recognise a marriage that's against their views, and no one get's discriminated against just because some bigoted morons don't think before they speak.

[QUOTE=Shaed]1. The Catholic Church would not have to recognise the marriages.
Yeah sure they wouldnt, and Hitler said he was happy just taking back the Rhine and Sudetanlands, that allowed, he then proceeded to take Czechoslovakia and Poland.
My point being if gays are given marriage rights in court, then legal action could be bought against Churches for not recognising their unholy unions, under such case headings as hate crime and discrimination.

Marriage is not monopolised by Christians.

Really, OMG that is startling news.

That's why I, an atheist, will be able to get married when I am older. I can go to a registry office and get a marriage license. and all the legal rights associated with a marriage, without having ANYTHING to do with ANY church.

More old news.

Your church disagreeing with someone's sexual preference should have no bearing on their right to marry, any more than your church's opinion on my religious views. But, regardless: your church would not have to recognise a legal homosexual marriage in any way. Only the government would.

See my first answer again.

2. As it's been mentioned, marriage has not always been 'between man and woman'. In fact, it's only in light of the push for homosexual marriages that states are scrambling to alter the definition. There are already MANY churches/religions willing to perform gay marriage (even some of the more enlightened Christian ones) -

A huge collapse of morals in Western society in the last thirty or so years has led us to gays wanting gay marriage being recognised as legal.
In ten years paedophiles will probably follow up pushing for the right to marry kids.
Ive heard that marriages have even been performed between people and animals in the United states, not by a Church but.

Enlightened Christian churches, corrupted would be a better definition.
it's only the goverment's favouritism that is preventing these marriages from being upheld legally.

And, 3. If you prefer, we could have civil unions for all (including homosexuals), with 'marriage' being a ceremony reserved by churchs - then no church would ever have to recognise a marriage that's against their views, and no one get's discriminated against just because some bigoted morons don't think before they speak.

Read my first point in this post again, sorry but the first people picketting Churches as homophobic will probably be wonderful guys such as yourself.
As for the brayed insult, I pretty much expected it, if we dont agree with your views on gay marriage then we are nothing but bigots and morons, spoken like a true PC thug.

A huge collapse of morals in Western society in the last thirty or so years has led us to gays wanting gay marriage being recognised as legal.
In ten years paedophiles will probably follow up pushing for the right to marry kids.
Ive heard that marriages have even been performed between people and animals in the United states, not by a Church but.

Paedophiles such as NAMBLA are already pushing for recognition, and yet have been given none whatsoever because it is recognised that young children not capable of giving consent are, strangely, not consenting adults and therefore cannot participate in the wider 'union of two consenting adults' definition of marriage. Ditto animals.

Seriously, this idiotic slippery slope argument has been beaten to death so many times it isn't funny.

Actually, the bigoted comment wasn't directed at you at all. You post replies, and are willing to debate, so I can handle your difference of views. The people I meant are the ones totally unable to defend their views.

However, the paedophile comparison doesn't work because children cannot consent legally (nor can animals). To say that 'if you allow <x> to happen will cause <y> to happen' is referred to the Slippery Slope Fallacy, and it makes for a bad line of argument.

I cannot see how churches could be forced to recognise gay marriage... churches give no legal rights, and since there are already Christian churches performing gay marriage now, I see no reason why homosexuals would go to the ones that are against gay marriage for their ceremonies. If you can explain further how churches could be forced into accepting the marriages performed by other churches or the state, I may have to reconsider my stance.

Also, I never pickett anything. I usually see it as being a waste of time, and an overly aggressive action.

And people *already* call churches homophobic. And I'm sorry, but ignoring the connontations (because this isn't meant as an insult per say), they are. They are intollerant of homosexuals. Churches view them as 'unholy'. That's homophobic by any definition (well, any *rational* definition that doesn't include 'fish' or 'umbrella').

-------
Any and all spelling mistakes I blame on getting two hours sleep last night - hopefully the majority of the post still makes sense.

Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing.
I feel ok.
Dunno what'll be after, but I'll find out. Everyone will : D

I cannot see how churches could be forced to recognise gay marriage... churches give no legal rights, and since there are already Christian churches performing gay marriage now, I see no reason why homosexuals would go to the ones that are against gay marriage for their ceremonies. If you can explain further how churches could be forced into accepting the marriages performed by other churches or the state, I may have to reconsider my stance.

Homosexuals go to churches against gay marriage because there are other factors leading to a person's religion (or lack therof). Like many people, they'd like the blessing of the church they consider themselves part of. When they don't get it, many of them seek to change the church instead of simply running away and converting to a new religion. To me, that seems to be the heart of the conflict. I disagree a great deal with the Church, but I still consider myself part of it; I can safely say that if I were homosexual and ready to marry, I would still refuse to convert.

As for the church accepting gay marriage, I can't see how a church could be "forced" into it, but churches can be persuaded. At least in America, the church has allowed women to become deacons (sort of a watered-down priest). Although I don't see it happening any time soon, gay marriage could one day be considered acceptable. At the moment, it's just a question of how long it takes them to wear down centuries of ritualized tradition.

Paedophiles such as NAMBLA are already pushing for recognition, and yet have been given none whatsoever because it is recognised that young children not capable of giving consent are, strangely, not consenting adults and therefore cannot participate in the wider 'union of two consenting adults' definition of marriage. Ditto animals.

Seriously, this idiotic slippery slope argument has been beaten to death so many times it isn't funny.

That there is even a paedophile organisation such as NAMBLA being allowed to push for recognition as to what they do with kids is somehow right, confirms my suspicions about the slippery slope to hell, being allowed to exist means they will keep pushing and one day when society has really rotted beyond belief they will get through.

These people should be executed.

That there is even a paedophile organisation such as NAMBLA being allowed to push for recognition as to what they do with kids is somehow right, confirms my suspicions about the slippery slope to hell, being allowed to exist means they will keep pushing and one day when society has really rotted beyond belief they will get through.

I supremely doubt it. Paedophilia has always existed and has yet to 'push through,' I don't see any reason to believe it ever will.

Homosexuals go to churches against gay marriage because there are other factors leading to a person's religion (or lack therof). Like many people, they'd like the blessing of the church they consider themselves part of. When they don't get it, many of them seek to change the church instead of simply running away and converting to a new religion. To me, that seems to be the heart of the conflict. I disagree a great deal with the Church, but I still consider myself part of it; I can safely say that if I were homosexual and ready to marry, I would still refuse to convert.

As for the church accepting gay marriage, I can't see how a church could be "forced" into it, but churches can be persuaded. At least in America, the church has allowed women to become deacons (sort of a watered-down priest). Although I don't see it happening any time soon, gay marriage could one day be considered acceptable. At the moment, it's just a question of how long it takes them to wear down centuries of ritualized tradition.

But there are already Churches of most religions that *are* willing to perform the ceremonies. Ie, they can't go to the Catholic church on the corner, but they *can* go to the one across town. Same religion, but one church is willing to embrace their sexuality, the others aren't. So there really would be no need for them to force themselves into the churches that don't want them. Heck, they could go to a different church for the ceremony, and continue going to their normal one. Most homosexuals aren't wanting to get married to impress the people of their church - chances are, if their church doesn't approve, but they can go to another, they'll keep a low profile.

And if a church is persuaded, that is up to the church. If it's not forced on them, I don't see how you can be against it. If they are persuaded, the weakness is in the church, and you can't blame any homosexuals for that.

Oh, and in many countries and civilisations, gay sex was either a) totally acceptable, since it kept men from straying to unwed women or prostitutes
b) totally accepted because it helped form bonds between men who were away at war for many years of their life
and/or
c) a ritual associated with becoming an adult - young men would be paired with an older 'mentor'. Relationships and sodomy between mentors and young men were common and very accepted.

I can understand you may claim that these civilisations were backward... unfortunately, most of what we consider 'civilisation' *originated* in ancient civilations... so it's a two edged sword, kind of thing.

I supremely doubt it. Paedophilia has always existed and has yet to 'push through,' I don't see any reason to believe it ever will.

But has there ever been organisations like the North American Man Boy Love Association, peditioning the law courts to be recognised before?

But there are already Churches of most religions that *are* willing to perform the ceremonies. Ie, they can't go to the Catholic church on the corner, but they *can* go to the one across town. Same religion, but one church is willing to embrace their sexuality, the others aren't. So there really would be no need for them to force themselves into the churches that don't want them. Heck, they could go to a different church for the ceremony, and continue going to their normal one. Most homosexuals aren't wanting to get married to impress the people of their church - chances are, if their church doesn't approve, but they can go to another, they'll keep a low profile.

And if a church is persuaded, that is up to the church. If it's not forced on them, I don't see how you can be against it. If they are persuaded, the weakness is in the church, and you can't blame any homosexuals for that.

Oh, and in many countries and civilisations, gay sex was either a) totally acceptable, since it kept men from straying to unwed women or prostitutes
b) totally accepted because it helped form bonds between men who were away at war for many years of their life
and/or
c) a ritual associated with becoming an adult - young men would be paired with an older 'mentor'. Relationships and sodomy between mentors and young men were common and very accepted.

I can understand you may claim that these civilisations were backward... unfortunately, most of what we consider 'civilisation' *originated* in ancient civilations... so it's a two edged sword, kind of thing.

I'm not against homosexuality. I'm not faulting it in the slightest - sorry if I gave that impression. I agree with you on the different churches part - I thought gay marriage was being banned city or state-wide, so I'll withdraw that statement. I do, however, have a problem with your point of view on persuasion. Would you mind expanding on why a persuaded church is weak? I happen to think of compromise and open-mindedness as virtues. If a church listens to a gay couple's stance and agrees to marry them (for whatever reason, work with me here), how is that weakness and not greatness?



On an aside, my favorite ultra-male ritual comes from Australia. Basically, all men subconsiously fear menstration. When Australian boys came of age, they underwent something called a subincision. This ritual was meant to seperate the boys from the female society they were raised in, as to prepare them for a more masculine way of life (ie, hunting). They would lie totally nude until they were erect. Then one of the elders would slash their... shaft... so greatly that they would typically lose half a pint of blood or more. Old civilizations were absolutely filled with rituals like these - I do realize where some of our culture comes from.

But has there ever been organisations like the North American Man Boy Love Association, peditioning the law courts to be recognised before?

Yes.

[QUOTE=Arcadian Mists]
On an aside, my favorite ultra-male ritual comes from Australia. Basically, all men subconsiously fear menstration.

I take it this is about the Australian Aboriginals?
Most of the tribes stopped doing ritual circumcision with two blunt stones over a hundred years ago.
Sorry but how could you fear something subconsiously that isnt a part of your biology.
That would be like saying women subconsiously fear having an erection.

When Australian boys came of age, they underwent something called a subincision. This ritual was meant to seperate the boys from the female society they were raised in, as to prepare them for a more masculine way of life (ie, hunting).

It was a very painful experience that went for hours, any boy who ran away was treated as a woman for the rest of his life.

They would lie totally nude until they were erect. Then one of the elders would slash their... shaft... so greatly that they would typically lose half a pint of blood or more. Old civilizations were absolutely filled with rituals like these - I do realize where some of our culture comes from.

Sorry but thats not true, there was no slashing or loosing half a pint of blood from their penis.
The foreskin was worn off by grinding two blunt stones together, which Id say would be very painful ,and probably be very character building.

Yes.

Example?

[QUOTE=Arcadian Mists]
On an aside, my favorite ultra-male ritual comes from Australia. Basically, all men subconsiously fear menstration.

I take it this is about the Australian Aboriginals?
Most of the tribes stopped doing ritual circumcision with two blunt stones over a hundred years ago.
Sorry but how could you fear something subconsiously that isnt a part of your biology.
That would be like saying women subconsiously fear having an erection.

When Australian boys came of age, they underwent something called a subincision. This ritual was meant to seperate the boys from the female society they were raised in, as to prepare them for a more masculine way of life (ie, hunting).

It was a very painful experience that went for hours, any boy who ran away was treated as a woman for the rest of his life.

They would lie totally nude until they were erect. Then one of the elders would slash their... shaft... so greatly that they would typically lose half a pint of blood or more. Old civilizations were absolutely filled with rituals like these - I do realize where some of our culture comes from.

Sorry but thats not true, there was no slashing or loosing half a pint of blood from their penis.
The foreskin was worn off by grinding two blunt stones together, which Id say would be very painful ,and probably be very character building.

We're referring to two seperate rituals, I think. This information comes from The Masks of God, by Joseph Cambell. As an aside, there are a LOT of things I don't have that I fear. Plenty of men fear birth-giving, while that's plainly impossible for their biology. Joseph Cambell was addressing the fact that men inheriently fear women on some level - a portion of that is their menstration cycle.

..... I do, however, have a problem with your point of view on persuasion. Would you mind expanding on why a persuaded church is weak? I happen to think of compromise and open-mindedness as virtues. If a church listens to a gay couple's stance and agrees to marry them (for whatever reason, work with me here), how is that weakness and not greatness?.....

I actually don't. I believe personally that the churches that accept homosexual marriage are very forward thinking, and deserve lavishes of praise.

However, on a board like this, I'm happier just to come to a compromise, and I'm aware the person I was debating with saw 'persuasion' as a bad thing. I was trying to point out that if a church is able to be persuaded, that's down to the church, not the homosexuals.

Example?

I believe in several cultures it was actually entirely legal for men to keep boys. Ancient Greece I think was one. This would indicate that your slippery slope is garbage because we'd be sliding up it.

I actually don't. I believe personally that the churches that accept homosexual marriage are very forward thinking, and deserve lavishes of praise.

However, on a board like this, I'm happier just to come to a compromise, and I'm aware the person I was debating with saw 'persuasion' as a bad thing. I was trying to point out that if a church is able to be persuaded, that's down to the church, not the homosexuals.

Ah. I see. Well, I'm content to see the end of this debate, and I'm happy to come to a compromise as well.

I believe in several cultures it was actually entirely legal for men to keep boys. Ancient Greece I think was one. This would indicate that your slippery slope is garbage because we'd be sliding up it.

Ancient Greece never condoned paedophilia, meaning prepubescent
The boys were usually past puberty.

Ancient Greece never condoned paedophilia, meaning prepubescent
The boys were usually past puberty.

True, but the Ancient Greeks *did* condone and encourage homosexual relationships, which is a point you haven't addressed.


(not being flamey... I'm conceeding you're right... I've never read about prepubescent boys engaging in homosexual acts in Ancient Greece, although someone else here might have)

Ancient Greece never condoned paedophilia, meaning prepubescent
The boys were usually past puberty.

A gunshot rings out. 'Gah, my foot!' cries Terminalia.

[QUOTE=Shaed]True, but the Ancient Greeks *did* condone and encourage homosexual relationships, which is a point you haven't addressed.

They condoned it to a point, but they never recognised it as the same as a hetero relationship or gave it the same rights.
The Romans also condoned it but it was never openly talked about as normal, any man being openly homo in the Roman army was usually put out for his own safety.
Meaning yes we know your gay, but your a good fighter or leader and a laugh sometimes so keep it to yourself.

A gunshot rings out. 'Gah, my foot!' cries Terminalia.

There would have been cases of it happenning.

Sad.


Not necessarily sad just because I disagree with your world view. It is quite sad that you assume that...


Yes.. you probably will.


Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll have to believe that we all die and decompose. Even Christians.


Buying?
Is what your buying any better?


I'm not buying into anything. If someone presents a decent argument, or the tiniest scrap of evidence, I am willing to embrace a new worldview. There is no evidence, so I chose to not believe what amounts to wishful thinking.
No. There isn't, really. Xfiles fans like to think there is. Christians like to think there is, because then they don't sound quite so crazy when they talk about 'demons walking the earth' and snakes that talk.

They dont think they sound crazy, you do.
I dont believe in talking snakes either, demons are everywhere.


You don't believe in talking snakes? Not a Christian, then?
Or do you pick and chose which bits of the Bible you want to believe?

Demons everywhere? Give me a break...

Have you seen the Easter Bunny recently?


Ghosts, and dont say they dont exist because Ive seen and felt them when their around.


I have never seen or experienced anything 'ghostly' that couldn't be explained by my knowledge of science. That you cannot explain it says more about your science than about the existence of ghosts.

How can there be ghosts AND Heaven/Hell?


Thats a very ignorant statement to make, not to mention just plain rude, but I guess you cant help being what you are.

Nice to see you on your moral highground there... and on the same page that you implied I 'think in limited dimensions', too...

Im an athiest.

To me, death is the end.

Thats it.

No afterlife.....no paradise....nothing.

The end? you no longer exsist? Can you even imagine that? YOU yourself are gone...nothing remains of you or your being, you are not "sleeping" in your coffin or something, but you~your brain, your feelings, your thoughts~ are no more.you are just gone. If that is what death is, I think you should be very scared.

The end? you no longer exsist? Can you even imagine that? YOU yourself are gone...nothing remains of you or your being, you are not "sleeping" in your coffin or something, but you~your brain, your feelings, your thoughts~ are no more.you are just gone. If that is what death is, I think you should be very scared.
why would that be scary?

The end? you no longer exsist? Can you even imagine that? YOU yourself are gone...nothing remains of you or your being, you are not "sleeping" in your coffin or something, but you~your brain, your feelings, your thoughts~ are no more.you are just gone. If that is what death is, I think you should be very scared.

I fail to see why that would be scary? It's inevitable, and there is no suffering... I would assume you would just make the best use of the time you have available, maybe leave something behind for the next generation, and be prepared for it all to end when you die.

That doesn't scare me... Why would it scare you?

why would that be scary?

Uh Hello? no longer being? That would freak me out abit. Think about it.

I don't know... No longer being doesn't freak me out as much as being does. Seriously, we're on this planet for what? To try to make a name for ourselfs? In fifty years will someone put flowers on our graves? No one mourns for someone they don't know. So we try to put our names in Hostory textbooks, as if that will some how make it better...