NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Okay, to me ... if I cant explain it somehow, its supernatural. I leave it there. If something floats around a room ... I think ghosts, not god.

I have no problem with belief. Having a belief is a wonderful thing and I wouldnt stop anyone from having one ... the organised version, aka religion, however ... nah. Other people shouldnt dictate the way you have to believe in something. If you dont believe in this by these set guidelines ... you arent doing it right and we dont like you - seem silly to you?

I had to look up "strident" at dictionary.com; no one's ever called me that before. :-) (I'm as quiet as a mouse.) I meant no harshness in my tone, though it was a bit petulant in the first line. To me, the "roots of religion" can be found in mythology; it seem so obvious, yet no one takes it seriously. I even found there poetic and descriptive metaphors that describe well (I would dare say precisely) the phenomenon I experienced when I had my "religious experience", and that many, many years after the fact.

I agree, it's a good thing to strive for understanding.

I hope you weren't offended... it's not a comment on you... your comment was just more... well, strident than your usual material. ;)

For me... there is more behind the mythology, though. Every culture borrows images from earlier cultures, that is true... but the way they emboss them with something new (unfortunately, christianity does this less well than most, stealing elements and pasting them over other ideas...) is fascinating to me.

Like I said... not all myths are gods... and yet there are still certain common elements - that suggest there is something in the psyche that is shaping or shaped by something else. It's that enigma that fascinates, the 'people behind the stage, moving things'. And, I don't mean the gods or the faeries (which may yet prove true), but the forces of mass psychology that make us see or feel these things.

For me. Others see it differently. They see puppets, I look for hands.

I can think of metaphors and poetic images that describe my 'religious experience', too. Unfortunately for 'religion', I can also think of more mundane explanations for my 'religious experience'.

Incidentally - try to conjure up an image of yourself, finding out that aliens really did land in the desert, and have been being laboratory farmed in a hangar at area 51. All those UFO sightings are real.

Got that image.

That's what it feels like to realise you don't believe your religion anymore.

That is the 'religious experience' (contradiction in terms that it is) of the Atheist.

consciousness ends. energy
is released, as it is neither created
nor destroyed. a new life arises. it
goes on.

but then, i'm a zen wiccan. what would i know about dying, other than how to spell the word.

harsh...but fair.

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
]"So you deny that gods can exist other than to save us from fears?"

You'll have to explain what you mean by that. I'll try though.

Gods exist to inspire us.

Gods exist to scare us. To infuriate us. To tempt us. Etc...

The 6 year-old bit was the quickest way to describe what I saw, which was someone exhibiting the mindset of a six year-old.[/COLOR]


And what exactly is the mindset of a 6 year old?

Again I point out my post that to me the mindset of a child really is a gloriously open thing until people try to shape their views

But this is obviously not the meaning you intended

So what is the mindset of a 6 year old

And what did I … or anyone else say to remind you of that



Or maybe I should take it like you do

Sees the little people talking about statements and laughs
Sees them “combating” over little thoughts of wisdom scratching heads

Something about sand and rolling in it

(yes I know being sarcastic … not because of lack of understanding)

The 6 year-old does not know of "international policy".

The 6 year-old does not know of "electromagnetism".

When the 6 year-old comments on the electromagnetism and international policy of his fellow 6 year-olds, it is amusing.

:)

The 6 year-old does not know of "international policy".

The 6 year-old does not know of "electromagnetism".

When the 6 year-old comments on the electromagnetism and international policy of his fellow 6 year-olds, it is amusing.

:)

Oh comon people. This makes it pretty much 2 pages now of discussion of the mentality of a 6 year old.

Last time I read the topic it was about Athiests and their feelings on death. Let's cut off the childish bickering and name calling and try to wrench ourselves back on topic here.

whoa, you people are raising hell unto each other just because of your difference of religion ( or lack of one). I think We all forgot the 11th commandments : keep thy damn religious convictions unto thyself.

Issac Asimov, a well-known athiest, and brilliant thinker, once wrote that being an athiest is "intellectually unrespectable." He decided, though, that since he feels (not thinks) that God doesn't exist, he would become an athiest. He is quoted: "I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that He doesn't, that I don't want to waste my time." He abandoned his reason and chose to embrace his emotion, his feelings.

That shows you about how much sense the average athiest uses in his choice of worldview.

As far as dying goes, though, I'm sure that 99% of Secular Humanists (the largest athiest group) believe in mere dissolution of entity, that is, we cease to be conscious, and in fact cease to exist.

Some athiests, however, believe in an afterlife, but don't know what, specifically, it entails.

[QUOTE=Noble Kings]Terminalia :
"Hey you guys bought this up on here first by saying witches were killed, so they must have been seen as a threat."

If you mean god told them witches were a threat, and to kill them, then they were a threat. I cant see how old ladies who wore black and had funny noses or a cackly laugh could be seen as threatening.

And you call my comments childish?

"Yeah well dont get too carried away with respecting her shes just a kid remember, and I know what respect is."

So children deserve no respect, yet you know what respect is. Err..

Ah the important words you missed and deliberately I would say 'were not to get to carried away it', in other words spoiling your kid, I would say this probably happenned to you.
And yes I do know what respect is.
Do you?



If people understood teaching a child one religion was abuse like a mother telling a child their father was "bad" if they had seperated. If you cant tell the whole story don't tell it.

What are you on about?
Do you even know?




Childish comments by Terminalia taken from single post:
your abit too how can I say 'liberated' for those times?
Im not lying sweetie.
I'll try to care about that.
No way are you wise, you misunderstood thats all, probably just a linguistics thing.
I promise you to burst into tears if its true.
Figure of speech get over it.
And guessing is about all you can do.
your either a teenager yourself or a bored and frustrated woman.
You have my sympathys if you are, and dont worry you will find someone again.

Ah the days where insults prove your point.

I wouldnt call them that, and this whole post of yours was pretty childish if anything.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]No - they acted the way they chose.


So did everyone else then.



What you find boring, one assumes, is the fact that you are refuted on your easily refuted arguments.lol whatever


And you know this how? From the bible? Wonder if maybe that might be a 'partisan' source?

Try and use logic then, if a people get conquered and dragged off to another country, what do you think these people will be treated as?
Celebrities?

And so was Jesus... and, sure, they nailed him up for it... but he got 30 years out of it first. I would have assumed you'd know that, if you had read the good book.

Somehow I dont think you would have lasted that long, also the ridicule for your modern views from both sexes would have driven you mad after a while.
And you have to stop assuming I havent read the Bible Grave because I usually do, last night I read about Gideon in the old testament, and seeing as your such an expert, could you tell me how he gave God two tests.


Witches were put under direct order of death. It doesn't say that it is because they were a threat...

Well who are we to judge why they killed them.

I don't understand YOUR version of it, perhaps.

And whats that?

Well, your story doesn't hold water.

OK whatever.

If someone has converted to christianity, they are a christian. So - if you did, indeed, have that friend... he/she would no longer be a muslim.

Alright I have three middle eastern friends, two are muslim, one was a muslim who converted to Christianity some time back, and they are all friends with each other and me, better?



So, I am not wise? That, my friend, is purely your opinion. And a pretty baseless one, at that.

Well I dont know, you get riled up pretty easily, also telling someone that just before they die they will realise they have lived a pointless life for having faith in something that doesnt according to you exist, isnt wise either, unless you can provide absolute proof of that you can only really say you have no idea either, now that would be wise.

I'd say you are already veering dangerously close to insult territory.

Oh sorry, only you can go there.

No. 'Christ' does not mean 'son of god'. How can you be a 'christ'ian and not even know what 'christ' is?

But he is the son of God, whether the Greek name means that or not


It doesn't sound like it... why should I not 'respect' her, just because she is young?

Shes only a kid, how can she respect you if your putting her up on some kind of pedestal at that age.

I prefer her attitude towards her religion, over your attitude to yours.

:) OK whatever makes you happy

Born-again is a very specific 'figure of speech', referring to the regeneration of man. If you are, as you claim, a christian by conversion - you must already have been 'born-again'. Perhaps you are confusing 'born-again' with 'baptised'?

No no the confusion is all yours, I have been baptised, born again as in spiritually, not physically..

What I say or do shouldn't affect YOUR behaviour as a christian... that is supposed to be part of your relationship to christ.

So this gives you free reign to do or say what you like to me because Im a Christian and if I respond in kind I am then not a Christian, right?
Wrong, verbal abuse would be laughed at, physical abuse if it was possible would be met with the same in return, sorry but turning the other cheek isnt really my go, especially with people who attack with a lack of fear because they expect the other person to be constrained to return in kind by their beliefs.


I wouldn't take 'unchristian' as a compliment... I would take it as irrelevent.

As I take your view on my faith.



You 'sympathise' with me, if I am a woman?
Oh, you're good.

Ah the key words you seem to have missed here were 'sad and frustrated woman', which of course I dont hope you are.
I dont sympathise with anyone purely all the time because of their sex or age.
Sometimes I feel sorry for women in general but not in an unkind way.

No. I am not a teenager, by a few years. I don't feel I am acting immature, but maybe that is just my perspective.

You come across as very immature.


You use the term 'teenager' and the word 'woman' as though they are insults.

No thats how you percieve them, quite deliberately too.

I fear this says much about your attitudes.

My attitude towards teenagers and women is fine, you might judge some of them to be old fashioned, but as long as no hate is involved then I'm quite comfortable with how I view them.

Some athiests, however, believe in an afterlife, but don't know what, specifically, it entails.
There is no such thing as an athiest that believes in the afterlife. I believe you are thinking of agnostic.

BACK ON TOPIC.

Of course I'm afraid of dying. I'm too young. And dying is painful. But I probably won't see it that way when I'm 80.

As for what happens after death. Nothing happens after death besides decomposition. As an athiest, I don't believe that any omipotent being will decide the fate of my soul for eternity- it's simply not logical. The laws of physics do not allow such a thing, and I trust F=ma more than I trust the ten commandments.

zeal P Pronunciation Key (z l)
n.
Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. See Synonyms at passion.


Now we can start quoting definitions all day…

What is zeal ?

How about dedication.

Can you say that atheists follow a similar cause … or are all their views to dissimilar?

In Fact … can you say people that are religious hold true to a cause to the level required for “Zeal”?


I consider myself atheist … but I don’t seem to have tireless diligence in furthering anything … I just am not convinced that there is a god … lack of zeal for a cause in of itself does not a cause … its not a BELIEF in nothing … rather then a LACK of belief in SOMETHING … (this may seem rather bleak to you but there is a definite difference) most of us are not steadfast in our belief in nothing rather just want to be shown proof that there is something.

We know we can be wrong … we under stand that and work to correct the lack of knowledge in something


your slightly missing the point..

atheists believe there is no god. where as agnostics lackthe belief..

As a member of American Atheists, i have researched this topic alot :P

I'm more agnostic, but not out of any fear of death. The concept of non-existance is sort of comforting. I can't imagine it, but I know there won't be any pain. It'll be like sleeping forever, without dreaming.

As far as dying goes, though, I'm sure that 99% of Secular Humanists (the largest athiest group) believe in mere dissolution of entity, that is, we cease to be conscious, and in fact cease to exist.
You think athiests believe in a soul, then, a projection or abstraction of "self" that "ceases to exist" upon death?

atheists believe there is no god. where as agnostics lackthe belief..

Then I don't believe in agnostics. Everyone has an opinion one way or another, and therefore a belief. I prefer the definition stated earlier: agnostics admit they don't know.

I cant read all 51 pages so i have a quick question sorry if its already been covered. DOnt athiest wonder what is it gonna be like when i died will i jus stop thinkin just nothing. For me that's amazingly scary thats a reason im convinced in an afterlife. And one comment for an atheist why not be christian or muslim or jew you play it safe in case your wrong and if ur rite well u jus wasted a sunday a week or saturday.

DOnt athiest wonder what is it gonna be like when i died will i jus stop thinkin just nothing. For me that's amazingly scary thats a reason im convinced in an afterlife.
Just because something is scary, you are convinced that it cannot be true? Coward.

And one comment for an atheist why not be christian or muslim or jew you play it safe in case your wrong and if ur rite well u jus wasted a sunday a week or saturday.
That's one seventh of my life. Besides, am I understanding correctly that you are saying that atheists go to hell, but all religious people regardless of their religion to to heaven? Huh?

I cant read all 51 pages so i have a quick question sorry if its already been covered. DOnt athiest wonder what is it gonna be like when i died will i jus stop thinkin just nothing. For me that's amazingly scary thats a reason im convinced in an afterlife. And one comment for an atheist why not be christian or muslim or jew you play it safe in case your wrong and if ur rite well u jus wasted a sunday a week or saturday.


Yes it is scary ... but guess what I dont just invent things so I feel better at night (at least not conciously)

And really would faking it one day a week be a true beleiver? would it explain things in your mind ... going through the rituals does not make you part of the religion ... more the beliefs

I could do the rituals sure but it would be a hollow faith

If that makes me a coward so be it. And no Im not sayin that all religous people go to heaven i just wish not to widen this debate right now on which religon is right or wrong. What I meant be go along with it was like try it at least maybe for a year or something to see how it goes kinda thing. And also as a christian I think my beliefs are right but at a time I was wondering what happens if there is no god etc. And i was like you know what i believe I have felt god if im just makin all this up in my head so be it w/e i certainly don't lose anything

Milostein]Just because something is scary, you are convinced that it cannot be true? Coward.

lol look whos talking.



That's one seventh of my life. Besides, am I understanding correctly that you are saying that atheists go to hell, but all religious people regardless of their religion to to heaven? Huh?

Probably.

I cant read all 51 pages so i have a quick question sorry if its already been covered. DOnt athiest wonder what is it gonna be like when i died will i jus stop thinkin just nothing. For me that's amazingly scary thats a reason im convinced in an afterlife. And one comment for an atheist why not be christian or muslim or jew you play it safe in case your wrong and if ur rite well u jus wasted a sunday a week or saturday.
For that matter, why not just convert on your death bed? Then you can be as wicked as you want all your life, and still "play it safe".

I cant read all 51 pages so i have a quick question sorry if its already been covered. DOnt athiest wonder what is it gonna be like when i died will i jus stop thinkin just nothing. For me that's amazingly scary thats a reason im convinced in an afterlife. And one comment for an atheist why not be christian or muslim or jew you play it safe in case your wrong and if ur rite well u jus wasted a sunday a week or saturday.
I'm probably as certain what will happen after I die as you are. That is to say, it will end up being nothingness. No, I am not scared of that, I am worried that I may not take full advantage of the life I've had.

The second part of your question was about believing just in case. This argument is a bastardization of Pascal's Wager (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/). There is no question that this argument is very persuasive to those who are religious (this is verified by the sheer number of times the proposition is asked of us atheists by christians -- which is all the damned time just in case you're thinking you've asked us something we've never heard before). The problems with Pascal's Wager and your dumbed down version in particular is that it blindly ignores the possibility of any other version of god. The argument could be used by Osama Bin Laden to support being Islamic. Furthermore, in the case of an atheist who considers the possibility of any God existing being infantesimal, the argument is entirely unpersuasive.

But, from the sounds of it, it doesn't sound like you're much up to the challenges of wading through the rigorous philosophical argument of Pascal's Wager. So let me just ask you this. Would the Christian God, if he exists, really let me into heaven simply because I pretend to believe in him? Understand, I am completely incapable of believing in the Christian God given the information that we have presently. So any professed belief would be a hollow belief.

I'm probably as certain what will happen after I die as you are. That is to say, it will end up being nothingness. No, I am not scared of that, I am worried that I may not take full advantage of the life I've had.

The second part of your question was about believing just in case. This argument is a bastardization of Pascal's Wager (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/). There is no question that this argument is very persuasive to those who are religious (this is verified by the sheer number of times the proposition is asked of us atheists by christians -- which is all the damned time just in case you're thinking you've asked us something we've never heard before). The problems with Pascal's Wager and your dumbed down version in particular is that it blindly ignores the possibility of any other version of god. The argument could be used by Osama Bin Laden to support being Islamic. Furthermore, in the case of an atheist who considers the possibility of any God existing being infantesimal, the argument is entirely unpersuasive.

But, from the sounds of it, it doesn't sound like you're much up to the challenges of wading through the rigorous philosophical argument of Pascal's Wager. So let me just ask you this. Would the Christian God, if he exists, really let me into heaven simply because I pretend to believe in him? Understand, I am completely incapable of believing in the Christian God given the information that we have presently. So any professed belief would be a hollow belief.

While I don't actually disagree with anything up there, I don't think you're being completely fair to Pascal's wager. I fail to see anything about it which is pro-Christian and anti-everything else. Plenty of Christians believe athiests and Muslims and Wiccans get into heaven. The problem is that, from what I've seen, the worst element of a religion usually ends up representing it.

Whew, long debate. Let's give this a shot. Nice and simple.


To answer the original question:

Dying is simply your body shutting down, and decomposing. Nothing more to it. It's the natural cycle of life.

Personally I fear HOW I die much more so than dying.

Being an atheist of sorts, I'm a Humanist (no I won't explain unless someone asks and I catch the post) I tend not to believe in a God or Gods. The world is what the Universe makes of it.

Here are a couple of quotations to help define atheism, other related belief systems, and maybe shed a bit of light on the thought pattern:

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". This is what controls everything, not a Deity. Nature itself. You live, so later you'll die. And so forth.

"Seeing is believing". This is pretty self explanatory. I, personally, can no longer believe in something if you can't prove to me that it exists. Though, theories are nice, doesn't quite cut it.


As for death, I see it as the greatest of adventures. It's the one fight you know you can't win, but try to anyways. Astounding.


And for those of you that question it, being Atheist, etc. doesn't mean that the person is immoral. I tend to follow the teaching of the Commandments (was born a Protestant) and live my life by them. They are excellent guidelines for being a good, decent person. Only difference is, I no longer believe in God. The principles are what matter!


I am tired now, so I sleep.
Again, I fear not death itself, but how I die.

Do I die a painful death?
Do I die satisfied with my life, and whom I've become?
Do I die a good man?

While I don't actually disagree with anything up there, I don't think you're being completely fair to Pascal's wager. I fail to see anything about it which is pro-Christian and anti-everything else. Plenty of Christians believe athiests and Muslims and Wiccans get into heaven. The problem is that, from what I've seen, the worst element of a religion usually ends up representing it.
Well given that Pascal was a devout Catholic, his wager is necessarily connected with the Christian religion. And if someone with the identity "Xtreme Christians" uses it (or the bastardized version of it), I tend to assume they are referring to the Christian God.

While I don't actually disagree with anything up there, I don't think you're being completely fair to Pascal's wager. I fail to see anything about it which is pro-Christian and anti-everything else. Plenty of Christians believe athiests and Muslims and Wiccans get into heaven. The problem is that, from what I've seen, the worst element of a religion usually ends up representing it.
You said atheists. If they get into heaven too, then that defeats Pascal's Wager completely.

I don't believe in an afterlife. However, in the unlikely case that I am wrong and it does exist, I'm going to go there regardless of whether I believed in it or not during my life - my belief does not change the facts. And if God has such an attitude that he is going to send me to Hell just for not believing in him, then I would be ashamed to enter Heaven and get too close to him anyway.

I cannot lose.

And if God has such an attitude that he is going to send me to Hell just for not believing in him, then I would be ashamed to enter Heaven and get too close to him anyway.

I cannot lose.

You would if you went to hell.

You said atheists. If they get into heaven too, then that defeats Pascal's Wager completely.

I don't believe in an afterlife. However, in the unlikely case that I am wrong and it does exist, I'm going to go there regardless of whether I believed in it or not during my life - my belief does not change the facts. And if God has such an attitude that he is going to send me to Hell just for not believing in him, then I would be ashamed to enter Heaven and get too close to him anyway.

I cannot lose.

Whoops! Sorry, you got me there! I totally overlooked that. Yes. You're right. I kind of did have a point, though.

You know what? I had half a paragraph typed, and this just isn't working. I'm being thick today. Screw my whole previous post. You're right. I guess I just think of p's wager as a reason to devote your life to a higher goal or purpose (religious, political, personal, whatever). If there's nothing beyond our life on earth, nothing really matters. The guy who wins with the most toys still dies. But why not do something good in your life? Maybe make the world a bit better? I know this is a really hippie version of the facts. Again, I appologize, I can't think today.

Well given that Pascal was a devout Catholic, his wager is necessarily connected with the Christian religion. And if someone with the identity "Xtreme Christians" uses it (or the bastardized version of it), I tend to assume they are referring to the Christian God.

I'm a devout Catholic as well, and I'm also a Panthiest and a Christian Mystic. I don't know if Pascal would agree with my beliefs, but his wager can be taken outside of a Christian perspective.

Even if Pascal's Wager were logically sound - which it isn't - then it would still be an attempt to cheat God, pretending to believe in him just because it might give you a better afterlife. I don't think an omniscient guy would fall for such a selfish trick.

Even if Pascal's Wager were logically sound - which it isn't - then it would still be an attempt to cheat God, pretending to believe in him just because it might give you a better afterlife. I don't think an omniscient guy would fall for such a selfish trick.

That's not the point. I'm pretty confindent that Pascal knew that God knows when someone's cheating. An honest athiest is better than a false Christian. At least the athiest has his/her heart in the right place.

Do you read Sinfest? Very funny, if repetitive, comic. One of my favorite ones goes something like this:
"So, God, I was thinking... Could I just live a life of absolute pleasure and have a quick death-bed repentence? Are you really All-forgiving?"
"Well, it depends. Are you All-sorry?"

[QUOTE=Arcadian Mists]That's not the point. I'm pretty confindent that Pascal knew that God knows when someone's cheating. An honest athiest is better than a false Christian. At least the athiest has his/her heart in the right place.

Yeah but the Atheist knows also deep down there only really fooling themself lol

[QUOTE]

Yeah but the Atheist knows also deep down there only really fooling themself lol

Could be... :rolleyes:

Yeah but the Atheist knows also deep down there only really fooling themself lol
No. It is you who are fooling yourselves, deluding yourself out of fear.

[QUOTE]

Yeah but the Atheist knows also deep down there only really fooling themself lol

Nice example of wishful thinking.

No. It is you who are fooling yourselves, deluding yourself out of fear.

Don't take it too seriously, that was a joke.

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.
Oh for crying out loud.

A religion is by definintion the outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due.
Theism is defined as belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
The prefix "A" means without
Therefore an Atheist is someone without belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. And, without a belief in or recognition of the existence of a god or gods, you cannot be religious.

Religion is not merely a belief, it is a belief in a very specific thing, namely a god or gods exist and that those god or gods have power over them. Atheism and religion are mutually exclusive.

Also, no atheist (or anyone else for that matter) who has ever really thought about it would say that you can prove anything with absolute certainty in the real world. So no, atheists do not require proof. What we do is choose to believe only those things for which we have sufficient and verifiable evidence. Further, we do not attempt to prove that something does not exist. That doesn't even make any sense. How can one prove that something does not exist? I would have to know everything about everything to prove that something didn't exist.

Please. The word "religion" has been in the English language since the late twelth century. In those times, atheism was unknown, or at least far less than it is today. You will also note that in the bible, when the Israelites are betraying God, they always turn to worship of other deities rather than becoming atheists. Throughout history, too many Christians have accused everyone who isn't them of worshipping Satan. It is ridiculous to assume, then, that a word used since ancient times can be conclusively said to include or exclude a concept much younger than the word itself.

Please. The word "religion" has been in the English language since the late twelth century. In those times, atheism was unknown, or at least far less than it is today. You will also note that in the bible, when the Israelites are betraying God, they always turn to worship of other deities rather than becoming atheists. Throughout history, too many Christians have accused everyone who isn't them of worshipping Satan. It is ridiculous to assume, then, that a word used since ancient times can be conclusively said to include or exclude a concept much younger than the word itself.

That is wholly untrue. Although the word may not have existed, people have been athiests just as long as they have been religious. Christians assume all those people are Satanists or whatever, because "whatever's not God is obviously satan". I highly suggest, whether you're religious or not, to read something by Joseph Cambell. He's written a lot. I recently finished one called The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology. It's all about how mythology, religon, and spiritualism formed in pre-history. Disagree with me if you like, but there are highly respected schollars that conclude that all of humankind has had both spiritualists and non-spiritualists.

No. It is you who are fooling yourselves, deluding yourself out of fear.
Not true, I just simply choose to believe, and If Im wrong then Im not going to know am I.
So what is there to be afraid about?

Not true, I just simply choose to believe, and If Im wrong then Im not going to know am I.
So what is there to be afraid about?

You know, athiests could give the exact same answer, but you'd tell them how wrong they are.

Here's a fact: no religion is proven. At all. Period. Flat out. There's no concrete evidence for any of them, because it's impossible to prove if a diety does or doesn't exist.

Yeah but the Atheist knows also deep down there only really fooling themself lol

Actually, Jesus wasn't that important of a guy, just some random dude who crossed the Roman Empire the wrong way and died. YOu know that deep down, you're only fooling yourself ;)

You know, athiests could give the exact same answer, but you'd tell them how wrong they are.

Here's a fact: no religion is proven. At all. Period. Flat out. There's no concrete evidence for any of them, because it's impossible to prove if a diety does or doesn't exist.



Actually, Jesus wasn't that important of a guy, just some random dude who crossed the Roman Empire the wrong way and died. YOu know that deep down, you're only fooling yourself ;)

Who said anything about Jesus?

[QUOTE=Goed]You know, athiests could give the exact same answer, but you'd tell them how wrong they are.

No Id just feel sorry for them.

Here's a fact: no religion is proven. At all. Period. Flat out. There's no concrete evidence for any of them, because it's impossible to prove if a diety does or doesn't exist.

Going no where after you die isnt proven either.

Actually, Jesus wasn't that important of a guy, just some random dude who crossed the Roman Empire the wrong way and died. YOu know that deep down, you're only fooling yourself ;)

Right so how come hes the most talked about person in the history of Western civilisation and for all I know others, if he wasnt that important?

[QUOTE]

No Id just feel sorry for them.

Going no where after you die isnt proven either.

Right so how come hes the most talked about person in the history of Western civilisation and for all I know others, if he wasnt that important?

Oh, come on. This isn't helping. You're just insulting them now.

[QUOTE]

No Id just feel sorry for them.
Well, I already feel sorry for you, champ ;)


Going no where after you die isnt proven either.
Astonishingly enough, that's correct.


Right so how come hes the most talked about person in the history of Western civilisation and for all I know others, if he wasnt that important?
Because his followers saw a moment of opportunity when Rome was falling and took over? Because christians seem to be much, much more likily to try and force their way into politics? Any of these and more are good answers that do not equate to "he's the messiah"

Oh, come on. This isn't helping. You're just insulting them now.

How am I?

Maybe we should consider this forum closed lest we all drop dead from boredom.

How am I?

It just seems to me that telling athiests "you feel sorry for them" will only piss them off and hate Christianity and religion even more. I think tensions around here would cool off a bit if one side stopped trying to downplay the other... Sorry, I hate to direct all this at you personally. As an aside, I find your posts quite amusing. Not Communist in Mississippi amusing, but interesting all the same. And let's face it, that guy's either putting on a show or is wrong in the head.

My computer is out to lunch right now - if this posts, it'll be my last one for the evening. G'night till next time...

[QUOTE=Goed]Well, I already feel sorry for you, champ ;)


Do you really think I care? :)


Because his followers saw a moment of opportunity when Rome was falling and took over?

Romes day was over as an Empire in the west, someone had to run the city after the Goths and Vandals left, naturally this usually falls apon the most organised group at the time, so it was no conspiracy.


Because christians seem to be much, much more likily to try and force their way into politics?

Yeah well that cant be helped, people of good moral fibre usually rise to the top, regardless of what faith they follow.


Any of these and more are good answers that do not equate to "he's the messiah"


He was but, your not by any chance Jewish are you ?

Maybe we should consider this forum closed lest we all drop dead from boredom.

Easy solution to that, just dont read or post on here if your bored.

Yeah well that cant be helped, people of good moral fibre usually rise to the top, regardless of what faith they follow.

Yeah, and people of good moral fibre in this case are defined by greedy, power hungry pedophiliacs who don't pass any chance at all to force their beliefs and ideas on others.

Know what?
If there is a God, which I'm pretty unsure of, I don't think he really cares about me believing or not.
The only thing that matters is that I'm a good person, because my conscience tells me to be. I'm free to think whatever I want and no doctrine can trample on that. You have the right to believe whatever u want, me, I'm making my way on my own. When I'll die I'll see if there was something. Until then I'll be the best person I can be.
And if God does exist he will consider me as one of his people that did good use of the free will he has been given.

And I really have problems with people telling me I'm fooling myself! I just read some History and notice what is the cause of most of our wars since, at least, 2004 years. Aaaah the good ol' time of the Crusades, the Inquisition, English civil war, and so on...
I don't like religion for myself. I u do, that's fair enough, but don't disrespect my -our- position.

It just seems to me that telling athiests "you feel sorry for them" their will only piss them off and hate Christianity and religion even more.


I dont think thats possible.

And Im only being truthful in expressing my pity for the state of mind they have, and I mean it seriously.



[QUOTE]I think tensions around here would cool off a bit if one side stopped trying to downplay the other...

I cant see any tension, bit of spitefulness and silly stuff, but its only the internet.


As an aside, I find your posts quite amusing.

Thanks pal I'll send you out a fanpak in the mail :)


Not Communist in Mississippi amusing, but interesting all the same. And let's face it, that guy's either putting on a show or is wrong in the head.

I dont think hes wrong in the head and that worrys me more.


My computer is out to lunch right now - if this posts, it'll be my last one for the evening. G'night till next time...

Adios amigos

Do you hate it when people give their opinions of you..?

Obviousy you do, as my simple savage statements of opinion of someone else seems to have done so.

You hate it when people tell others their opinion of them, because it is "rude" to you and your culture. That's fine. It's called talking in mine. :)

You probably also hate mirrors.

As to my "need to distribute my wisdom"... we call THAT talking too.

I have no unique wisdom, other than my own observations. If others think them wise, or moronic beyond belief, that's nice, but they're only opinions.

If you don't like my style of writing, then you have several choices.

Ignore me.

Try to understand it without asking me.

Try to understand it by asking me.

I'll leave the "cohesiveness" and "writing like a normal person" judgements to others. :)

Your "incomprehension" to this poor simple savage, and his "not normal" thinking and speech obviously bothers you.

Does it feel awful not being my superior..?

Does it feel awful being with someone different than yourself..?

:)

I don't hate it when people give opinions about me. And I never said "I hate it when people tell others their opinion of them, because it is "rude" to me and my culture." My culture has nothing to do with it either. I said "I hate it when people tell other people how they are and feel, when the only people who can really know are the very people that are being told how they are and feel". I consider this arrogant and patronizing. Maybe you should try reading what is written and not how you want it to be written.

I guess it's awfull being inferior to you. Luckaly not many are. I certainly don't feel inferior to you and I'm very pleased with being in the company of non arrogant, non patronizing people, who speak not only in non related sentences. I guess you are the victim of some hollywood b-film in wich they all talk like seamingly intelligent beings.

I don't think you think abnormal, I just think you try to make yourself interesting and intelligent by writing nonsense camouflaged as intelligent replies. You should do politics. Maybe run for president, you'll feel at home there I guess. All those intelligent people... ;)

[QUOTE=The Frie]Know what?
If there is a God, which I'm pretty unsure of, I don't think he really cares about me believing or not.

He does he cares about everything.

The only thing that matters is that I'm a good person, because my conscience tells me to be. I'm free to think whatever I want and no doctrine can trample on that. You have the right to believe whatever u want, me, I'm making my way on my own. When I'll die I'll see if there was something. Until then I'll be the best person I can be.


Great, little insurance doesnt hurt but.


And if God does exist he will consider me as one of his people that did good use of the free will he has been given.

Well would he actually, because after reading your post, it seems you never considered him to be your leader.

And I really have problems with people telling me I'm fooling myself! I just read some History and notice what is the cause of most of our wars since, at least, 2004 years. Aaaah the good ol' time of the Crusades, the Inquisition, English civil war, and so on

Dont forget the Jihads and muslim slave racketeering, read about that too.
Religous persecution in the past wasnt just the sole domain of Christians, and Islamic led religous persecution is still well and truly going in areas of the middle east, Africa, Asia and SE Asia.

Funny how people on here never want to mention religous persecution unless its being carried out soley by Christians.
Just not PC is it?


I don't like religion for myself.

I have no problem with it as long as its not being used wrongly.

I u do, that's fair enough, but don't disrespect my -our- position.

I respect your right to believe in whatever you want, provided its not hurting anyone or anything.

I think i know why i fear death now (after careful deliberation).

I have a mildly childish view of life, it being that we are all like characters in an MMORPG. I have skills that i train up with practice, i meet people who become friends and progress through life to the end. (i like my metaphors)

Anyhow. I dislike the idea of my experiences and skills being lost, as i define who i am by them. I dont like not being around, having done it before i was born. Was REALLY dull.

Yes. Exactly.

Whether it is my own death or that of someone else, with the expiry of the earthly body the compond information that makes up that person's experiences and character are lost to the world we know. If we are lucky, pale imitations of that character and their knowledge will live on after them memetically, but the master program is deleted and no more valued output will be forthcoming from the original source.

As an inveterate hoarder of miscelaneous but 'interesting' information and junk, I think this view is entirely consistent with how I deal with real-world data and 'objects of interest'. Things should not be just thrown away, but should be kept as long as possible in the hope that they are of use to someone, and this includes ideas and memories and personality. This applies almost universally but (for example) a very bad person dying does not (on balance) prove a loss to humanity, much the same as some physical things (e.g. toxic waste) should be destroyed or denatured if proven to have no future value. This is a simplified description of my system of morality and I'm sure does not stand up to close scrutiny in the form I have just presented it, but I hope you get the idea.


As to after death, while I don't hold out much hope for a divine afterlife (within which the vital essence of the deceased lives on and continues to be the eternal resource that the mortal realm has lost) I class myself as Agnostic and therefore open to the possibility of such a possibility. I'm equally open to the possibility that a form of reincarnation occurs that (a bit like Hawking's newly-conceived black holes) allows 'lost' information to be brought back into our world, albeit in a scrambled manner with only the barest hint of what came before.


I would like to think that I am positively contributing to the resources of the world, that my living memories and knowledge are a useful reource and that after my demise the positive effects of my existence will live on in some form, but I can only hope, and do not have any intrinsic trust in any diety or spiritual process. In the immortal words of Popeye "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam" and I hope that I'm able to entrust that to you all in a positive manner, that my faults do not overwhelm my usefulness.

Right, enough self-abasement, please feel free to continue with the arguments... :)

Yeah, and people of good moral fibre in this case are defined by greedy, power hungry pedophiliacs who don't pass any chance at all to force their beliefs and ideas on others.

Thats a definition you want to believe more than is actually true, most priests are good religous men, paedophiles are a minority, non existant would be great, but unfortunately they are throughout society and not just confined to the priesthood, its unfair to brush the whole Church with the same brush.
I am more pissed off about Priests like this being in the Church and covered for or moved along, than you can imagine, they should be once proven, handed straight to the police without hesitation.

And I have always thought Priests should get married and have familys, I dont agree withe celibcy, guys who cant handle the lonliness turn to Alcohol, prostitutes, or worse suicide.
I dont think this is necessarily the cause for Paedophilia in the Church, those guys were always sickos.

Dont forget the Jihads and muslim slave racketeering, read about that too.
Religous persecution in the past wasnt just the sole domain of Christians, and Islamic led religous persecution is still well and truly going in areas of the middle east, Africa, Asia and SE Asia.

Funny how people on here never want to mention religous persecution unless its being carried out soley by Christians.
Just not PC is it?


Ok, i f I need to be more precise to that point, i could have been talking about it too. If you see the Inquisition as being a Christian reaction to the invasion of Southern Europe in the 14th C, maybe...
Well, it's my western-centric mind that just limited the talk there. I know about that too.
Anyway, It's not because u don't consider anybody as your leader that u aren't actually led.
A sheep doesn't give a damn about the shepherd. still the Shepherd is still around there somewhere. Still, I really don't think god cares about my beliefs, if he does care about something, it's my behaviour.
I'll see for his existence later. Until then, I'll pride myself being an atheist free thinker

Theism is defined as belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
The prefix "A" means without
Therefore an Atheist is someone without belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. And, without a belief in or recognition of the existence of a god or gods, you cannot be religious.

There's conflicting opinions as to whether "atheism" is descibes "(no gods), the belief of" or "no (gods, the belief of)" (to put it crudely and had to be re-edited to make slightly more sense).

The former is someone saying that "there are no gods, not one, nada". The other is a case of "I do not possess a belief in a god". Different people interpret these differently, some define 'hard' and 'soft' atheism, some define the latter as agnosticism and a lot of people end up arguing over the meanings for no net increase in knowledge and understanding.

Is there a solution to this dilema? I don't know. It's a side-issue to the main/original discussion.

Funny how people on here never want to mention religous persecution unless its being carried out soley by Christians.
Just not PC is it?
Good point. I just don't think religion is the main cause of the wars. Religion is just being used by leaders to make war. Its the ideal tool to demonize your enemies. Just like Hitler did with the Jews, Islamic fundamentalists do with Western Christians and Jews, Hindi do with Muslims in Kashmir and vice versa, Fundamentalist Muslims do with Christians in Indonesia. Religion makes it easier to make a distinction between race, culture, people and easier to persuade the people to agree with the stands of the (religious) leaders. Don't forget that the American Government always uses Gods name when going to war. And every fundamentalist American shouts "Yeah! God will crush the Muslim heathens like he did with Soddom and Gomora".

I always stand amazed when I see a western nation like america be so religious. Those practices have been stopped more than 50 years ago in our country. Our politicians don't use God or Satan to defend their statements or attack their opponents. I never heard anyone do something like that around here. I learned about Sodom and Gomorra thanks to good old Hollywood and CNN. Those a week go by in America without anyone saying something about Soddom and Gomora on TV? A strickt separation of religion and politics should have been established a long time ago. Wasn't that the whole point of the enlightened souls that first conquered North-America? You don't have to be an atheist to do politics, you just mustn't use religion to persuade people to follow your politics. Its cheap...its what religion was designed for...

If our head of state would Use god as a reference to why he was doing something, he'd be considered insane.

...erm, I'm an atheist...
on death, we all must die, I see no point in fearing the inevitable.
as to whether something happens after death, well, I have a theory I need to develop about energy. It's something like reincarnation but nothing at all like it, for it has nothing to do with souls.

How typical that this would turn into an argument between atheists and christians. I mean, really, people are always going to have differing views, no one is right or wrong, simply not in agreement with another...lets just move on

Though, it must be said that starting any topic with a religious basis is playing with fire

Thats a definition you want to believe more than is actually true, most priests are good religous men, paedophiles are a minority, non existant would be great, but unfortunately they are throughout society and not just confined to the priesthood, its unfair to brush the whole Church with the same brush.
I am more pissed off about Priests like this being in the Church and covered for or moved along, than you can imagine, they should be once proven, handed straight to the police without hesitation.

And I have always thought Priests should get married and have familys, I dont agree withe celibcy, guys who cant handle the lonliness turn to Alcohol, prostitutes, or worse suicide.
I dont think this is necessarily the cause for Paedophilia in the Church, those guys were always sickos.
That's just it. The vatican and other people with power would rather cover it up than to hand 'em over to the police. Sure, maybe there aren't _THAT_ much paedophiles, but there sure are alot of people who try to cover up the fact that there are.
I personally don't mind religion as much as I mind the church as a whole. In my opinion the church is the reason why alot of people don't like religion.

Please. The word "religion" has been in the English language since the late twelth century. In those times, atheism was unknown, or at least far less than it is today. You will also note that in the bible, when the Israelites are betraying God, they always turn to worship of other deities rather than becoming atheists. Throughout history, too many Christians have accused everyone who isn't them of worshipping Satan. It is ridiculous to assume, then, that a word used since ancient times can be conclusively said to include or exclude a concept much younger than the word itself.
You're speaking here of people of a very small area on a very large earth, who were largely tribal and nomadic, intermixing a lot and sharing ideas and gods. This argument doesn't hold true for all.

I won't mention any names, but almost everyone posting here so far is a moron. I'm an atheist, and there is no difference between us and anyone else, except that we don't happen to believe in any religion. As for death, it varies. I for one also believe in oblivion, but many people believe in reincarnation, some stupid thing they thought up themselves, or they just don't think about it.

Maybe we should consider this forum closed lest we all drop dead from boredom.
Maybe you should consider going somewhere more interesting if you're bored. ;-) I know I'm not bored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Do you hate it when people give their opinions of you..?

Obviousy you do, as my simple savage statements of opinion of someone else seems to have done so.

You hate it when people tell others their opinion of them, because it is "rude" to you and your culture. That's fine. It's called talking in mine.

You probably also hate mirrors.

As to my "need to distribute my wisdom"... we call THAT talking too.

I have no unique wisdom, other than my own observations. If others think them wise, or moronic beyond belief, that's nice, but they're only opinions.

If you don't like my style of writing, then you have several choices.

Ignore me.

Try to understand it without asking me.

Try to understand it by asking me.

I'll leave the "cohesiveness" and "writing like a normal person" judgements to others.

Your "incomprehension" to this poor simple savage, and his "not normal" thinking and speech obviously bothers you.

Does it feel awful not being my superior..?

Does it feel awful being with someone different than yourself..?




I don't hate it when people give opinions about me. And I never said "I hate it when people tell others their opinion of them, because it is "rude" to me and my culture." My culture has nothing to do with it either. I said "I hate it when people tell other people how they are and feel, when the only people who can really know are the very people that are being told how they are and feel". I consider this arrogant and patronizing. Maybe you should try reading what is written and not how you want it to be written.

I guess it's awfull being inferior to you. Luckaly not many are. I certainly don't feel inferior to you and I'm very pleased with being in the company of non arrogant, non patronizing people, who speak not only in non related sentences. I guess you are the victim of some hollywood b-film in wich they all talk like seamingly intelligent beings.

I don't think you think abnormal, I just think you try to make yourself interesting and intelligent by writing nonsense camouflaged as intelligent replies. You should do politics. Maybe run for president, you'll feel at home there I guess. All those intelligent people...

Agreed,... only the person feeling and knowing can know how they feel and what they know.

And my opinion of another's state-of-being is what I see. And just an opinion. :)

You are not inferior to me because you are not superior to me.

My style is an attempt at countering the hyper-legalistic verbiage (and verbal literalism) that I see in these forums. :)

If you take anyone who is different from you, in style or opinion, as an incomprehensible unintelligent inferior, that's fine,.. but what does that say of your culture and your people..?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnatoria
I'm probably as certain what will happen after I die as you are. That is to say, it will end up being nothingness. No, I am not scared of that, I am worried that I may not take full advantage of the life I've had.

The second part of your question was about believing just in case. This argument is a bastardization of Pascal's Wager. There is no question that this argument is very persuasive to those who are religious (this is verified by the sheer number of times the proposition is asked of us atheists by christians -- which is all the damned time just in case you're thinking you've asked us something we've never heard before). The problems with Pascal's Wager and your dumbed down version in particular is that it blindly ignores the possibility of any other version of god. The argument could be used by Osama Bin Laden to support being Islamic. Furthermore, in the case of an atheist who considers the possibility of any God existing being infantesimal, the argument is entirely unpersuasive.

But, from the sounds of it, it doesn't sound like you're much up to the challenges of wading through the rigorous philosophical argument of Pascal's Wager. So let me just ask you this. Would the Christian God, if he exists, really let me into heaven simply because I pretend to believe in him? Understand, I am completely incapable of believing in the Christian God given the information that we have presently. So any professed belief would be a hollow belief.


While I don't actually disagree with anything up there, I don't think you're being completely fair to Pascal's wager. I fail to see anything about it which is pro-Christian and anti-everything else. Plenty of Christians believe athiests and Muslims and Wiccans get into heaven. The problem is that, from what I've seen, the worst element of a religion usually ends up representing it.

"No, I am not scared of that, I am worried that I may not take full advantage of the life I've had."

That is what my people believe.

But what is "full advantage"..?

whoa, you people are raising hell unto each other just because of your difference of religion ( or lack of one). I think We all forgot the 11th commandments : keep thy damn religious convictions unto thyself.

We like to blither about such things. :)

And there is no 11th commandment that I know of <sarcasm>.

The question is "atheists dying (eventually)".. which they will.

Or is it "atheist dying (out)"...?!

Hmmmmmmmmm....

:)

Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?)
I hope my death is quick and painless. I see no reason to think there is something afterward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The 6 year-old does not know of "international policy".

The 6 year-old does not know of "electromagnetism".

When the 6 year-old comments on the electromagnetism and international policy of his fellow 6 year-olds, it is amusing.




Oh comon people. This makes it pretty much 2 pages now of discussion of the mentality of a 6 year old.

Last time I read the topic it was about Athiests and their feelings on death. Let's cut off the childish bickering and name calling and try to wrench ourselves back on topic here.

Yes, oh GOD Emperor Balt, lord of the word, arbiter of the pertinent and "use of pages". :)

The mentality of a six-year-old might well be pertinent.

Then again,... perhaps not. But then again,.. that's why we jabbered about it.

Quote:
Some athiests, however, believe in an afterlife, but don't know what, specifically, it entails.

There is no such thing as an athiest that believes in the afterlife. I believe you are thinking of agnostic.

BACK ON TOPIC.

Of course I'm afraid of dying. I'm too young. And dying is painful. But I probably won't see it that way when I'm 80.

As for what happens after death. Nothing happens after death besides decomposition. As an athiest, I don't believe that any omipotent being will decide the fate of my soul for eternity- it's simply not logical. The laws of physics do not allow such a thing, and I trust F=ma more than I trust the ten commandments.

I am an a-theist that believes that life goes on after I die. "I" exist in that "after my life" as the consequences of my actions during life.

Do consider yourself to HAVE a soul..?

If not, that answers the "what happens to the soul after death" question.

If you do, then what happens to it..?

What do the laws of physics (which I also believe in mightily!) have to do with religion..?

Which of the ten commandments do you not "trust"...? And what do you mean by trusting a commandment..?

:)

As an inveterate hoarder of miscelaneous but 'interesting' information and junk, I think this view is entirely consistent with how I deal with real-world data and 'objects of interest'. Things should not be just thrown away, but should be kept as long as possible in the hope that they are of use to someone, and this includes ideas and memories and personality. This applies almost universally but (for example) a very bad person dying does not (on balance) prove a loss to humanity, much the same as some physical things (e.g. toxic waste) should be destroyed or denatured if proven to have no future value. This is a simplified description of my system of morality and I'm sure does not stand up to close scrutiny in the form I have just presented it, but I hope you get the idea.
I would "scrutinize" that a 'bad' person is a loss to humanity - regardless of how much they were disliked, they are still representative of humanity. I would argue that there are no 'bad' people, just people who do bad things. People look at histories 'Monsters' like Hitler or Stalin, or even a one-time murderer, and ignore any good things they may have done in favour of exalting the bad as representative of them. In a way, it's the same as the culture argument earlier in this thread - the totality of the man cannot be judged by a few actions, no matter how bad they were, but the actions of the man are informed by his being a part of humanity. In the religious view, every spirit has "future value".

[snip] Right, enough self-abasement, please feel free to continue with the arguments... :)
Self-abase away; a healthy ego a good thing. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spencer and Wellington
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?)


I hope my death is quick and painless. I see no reason to think there is something afterward.

Would that be "something afterward" for YOU,... or for whom..?

I am an a-theist.

I am also very religious. After my death, or more correctly "my dying", as death is what comes AFTER dying, I know I will be able to do no more.

But during my death, after my life, the world will continue, and what I've done in it will affect others and reflect on me.

I'm certainly egomaniacal enough to want to be reflected on favorably.

So, I want my "afterlife" to be one where I am worshipped <sarcasm!> as a good person and a value to my family, people, culture, and anybody who might come across anything I've left behind in the world.

That is why I think there IS something afterward.

Simple observation of the world,.. of the "it is". :)

Semantics, perhaps.. but language and religion are entirely and utterly semantic in that it's a description of things "not real",.. of things entirely of the mind,.. of our inner selves,.. and of the great unknowable thing that is absolutely everything,.. of the "it is".

Oh... by the way...

Your favorite sandy butted smiling savage looney-toon is BACK..! :)

Now,.. let's get to talk-talk,.. eh..!?

If you take anyone who is different from you, in style or opinion, as an incomprehensible unintelligent inferior, that's fine,.. but what does that say of your culture and your people..?

You're starting to make more sence to me, but I still believe you to be arrogant and patronizing. My culture and my people haven't got much to do with what I'm saying here. Are you representative for your people and culture? "Pray to God" that this isn't the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by E B Guvegrra
As an inveterate hoarder of miscelaneous but 'interesting' information and junk, I think this view is entirely consistent with how I deal with real-world data and 'objects of interest'. Things should not be just thrown away, but should be kept as long as possible in the hope that they are of use to someone, and this includes ideas and memories and personality. This applies almost universally but (for example) a very bad person dying does not (on balance) prove a loss to humanity, much the same as some physical things (e.g. toxic waste) should be destroyed or denatured if proven to have no future value. This is a simplified description of my system of morality and I'm sure does not stand up to close scrutiny in the form I have just presented it, but I hope you get the idea.

I would "scrutinize" that a 'bad' person is a loss to humanity - regardless of how much they were disliked, they are still representative of humanity. I would argue that there are no 'bad' people, just people who do bad things. People look at histories 'Monsters' like Hitler or Stalin, or even a one-time murderer, and ignore any good things they may have done in favour of exalting the bad as representative of them. In a way, it's the same as the culture argument earlier in this thread - the totality of the man cannot be judged by a few actions, no matter how bad they were, but the actions of the man are informed by his being a part of humanity. In the religious view, every spirit has "future value".


Quote:
Originally Posted by E B Guvegrra
[snip] Right, enough self-abasement, please feel free to continue with the arguments...


Self-abase away; a healthy ego a good thing. :-)

In my culture, a really bad act is justification for immediate removal from this world, as both a lesson to others as to what "bad" means, and as a favor to the really bad person.

It's a favor in that it is deemed kind to show the really bad person the ultimate reality, which he will see very clearly during the act of dying, as well as a release from the "bad press" that he would have to face if he remained in the world.

Of course, this is only for REALLY bad people, as judged by the culture and the people present at the time, which will also be judged for their act of punishment by others.

I hope my death is quick and painless. I see no reason to think there is something afterward.
That is what I would consider the true athiest position. They see no reason to think now that there is something afteward, and don't discount the idea that they may see a reason someday. That is how I felt, too, when I was an athiest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
If you take anyone who is different from you, in style or opinion, as an incomprehensible unintelligent inferior, that's fine,.. but what does that say of your culture and your people..?



You're starting to make more sence to me, but I still believe you to be arrogant and patronizing. My culture and my people haven't got much to do with what I'm saying here. Are you representative for your people and culture? "Pray to God" that this isn't the case.

I AM arrogant and patronizing, to you, which makes it so,.. to you. :) That's appropriate.

I am so because you would see a "savage from some little island who's mind uses structures that are seemingly incongruous with mine and who fearlessly puts his observations into words" as arrogant and patronizing.

I would think I'm arrogant and patronizing too (which I do in fact from your point of view), if I hadn't had a lot of practice with showing up on other little islands with people as straight forward and blatently different than ME, and come to realize that it's better to be yourself than to not be. :)

You ARE repersentative of your culture..! How on earth could you NOT BE..!?

I'm not fool enough to say you're the ONLY representative of your culture, though. Though, I am indeed, quite the fool.

We're all representations of our culture. With my people we remember that, and consciously represent our culture in our actions, to ourselves and to others.

You may not like my culture much, apparently, and you are free to like or dislike that which you wish, but what opportunities do you miss if you simply "dislike" a people or culture (or person) because you know little of it..?

I would "scrutinize" that a 'bad' person is a loss to humanity - regardless of how much they were disliked, they are still representative of humanity. I would argue that there are no 'bad' people, just people who do bad things. People look at histories 'Monsters' like Hitler or Stalin, or even a one-time murderer, and ignore any good things they may have done in favour of exalting the bad as representative of them. In a way, it's the same as the culture argument earlier in this thread - the totality of the man cannot be judged by a few actions, no matter how bad they were, but the actions of the man are informed by his being a part of humanity. In the religious view, every spirit has "future value".In my culture, a really bad act is justification for immediate removal from this world, as both a lesson to others as to what "bad" means, and as a favor to the really bad person.

It's a favor in that it is deemed kind to show the really bad person the ultimate reality, which he will see very clearly during the act of dying, as well as a release from the "bad press" that he would have to face if he remained in the world.

Of course, this is only for REALLY bad people, as judged by the culture and the people present at the time, which will also be judged for their act of punishment by others.
I understand intellectually the need societies (in general) feel to remove bad elements permanently. I can't say I would never favour it, though that hasn't happened yet. But even if I did, I would still count it a loss to humanity.

Part of being human means recognizing the bad as well as the good in a human being. It is. I don't identify people as "bad people", because to remove a human being from "it is" simply for being what it is doesn't sit well with me.

If we recognize them as people doing bad things, then it would make more sense to educate them, to allow the bad person the opporunity to learn more about himself, and recognize what is good.

That said, I have seen some pretty sick fictional characterizations of people who, claiming to fully recognize good, exalt bad. The archetypal villain. If there are such people in the world, I might amend my ideas, but so far I have not read about nor met any real people that fit that bill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shlarg
I hope my death is quick and painless. I see no reason to think there is something afterward.

That is what I would consider the true athiest position. They see no reason to think now that there is something afteward, and don't discount the idea that they may see a reason someday. That is how I felt, too, when I was an athiest.

So it's the "no reason" part that distinguishes the atheist.

..OK... there should be reasons for doing things. That's sensible. :)

And my opinion... (oh god, here it comes..!)

They have no reason because they have filled "that space where the need for the belief of religion is" with something else.

And that something else is,.. <wait for it.. waait for it..>

..the only thing that can fill that space,... another religion..!

And the admittedly circular logic of this, is that it is the only thing that CAN fill a space that must be filled, by what it must be filled with.

In other words: The religion of disbelief is another belief religion.

WHICH IS JUST DANDY, and is only objectionable to the atheist if he insists that other's see religion as what he "doesn't believe in".

And the silly savage (me) rolls helplessly in the sand on the beach in uproarious laughter at the VERY funny expression on his fellow discusser's face. :)

I would "scrutinize" that a 'bad' person is a loss to humanity - regardless of how much they were disliked, they are still representative of humanity. I would argue that there are no 'bad' people, just people who do bad things. People look at histories 'Monsters' like Hitler or Stalin, or even a one-time murderer, and ignore any good things they may have done in favour of exalting the bad as representative of them. In a way, it's the same as the culture argument earlier in this thread - the totality of the man cannot be judged by a few actions, no matter how bad they were, but the actions of the man are informed by his being a part of humanity. In the religious view, every spirit has "future value".

As I said, I probably didn't explain it in a manner that truly reflected the complexities I intended.

Without some of the monsters who I (tentitively) would describe as having no net advantage to humanity, the dynamics of the system would be different. Maybe we would have never had speace-travel as we know it if not for the events of WW2 and maybe this would mean there'd not be the means for humanity to prevent the next asteroid hitting. Or maybe it would turn out happily in that world and not this for some reason.

No, my main point was about death being loss of information (at least some of which is the executable program that we all run in the form of our characters, conciousness and automatic reactions to the world). That is what I grieve for in others' deaths and what I feel regret about, in advance and unknowledgable about the facts, for my own. In the short term, I could imagine some theoretical characters and people (albeit based upon the characatures of people who exist) whose deletion from the world through the act of death does not deplete the sum of all happiness, but these would be the exception and we haven't really got the resources to fully explore how a world without the contribution of certain people might have been better or worse, especialyl butterfuly-effects and all. A good man could leave the world in disarray on his death, a bad man could leave the world united, perhaps against his unjust cause or perhaps through some almost unrelated occurence. As to individual essense, however, maybe I ought to start believing in the Ancient Egyption system of the heart being weighed against the feather of justice (or some-such symbol) in the afterlife so that the gods may judge you accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
I would "scrutinize" that a 'bad' person is a loss to humanity - regardless of how much they were disliked, they are still representative of humanity. I would argue that there are no 'bad' people, just people who do bad things. People look at histories 'Monsters' like Hitler or Stalin, or even a one-time murderer, and ignore any good things they may have done in favour of exalting the bad as representative of them. In a way, it's the same as the culture argument earlier in this thread - the totality of the man cannot be judged by a few actions, no matter how bad they were, but the actions of the man are informed by his being a part of humanity. In the religious view, every spirit has "future value".

In my culture, a really bad act is justification for immediate removal from this world, as both a lesson to others as to what "bad" means, and as a favor to the really bad person.

It's a favor in that it is deemed kind to show the really bad person the ultimate reality, which he will see very clearly during the act of dying, as well as a release from the "bad press" that he would have to face if he remained in the world.

Of course, this is only for REALLY bad people, as judged by the culture and the people present at the time, which will also be judged for their act of punishment by others.


I understand intellectually the need societies (in general) feel to remove bad elements permanently. I can't say I would never favour it, though that hasn't happened yet. But even if I did, I would still count it a loss to humanity.

Part of being human means recognizing the bad as well as the good in a human being. It is. I don't identify people as "bad people", because to remove a human being from "it is" simply for being what it is doesn't sit well with me.

If we recognize them as people doing bad things, then it would make more sense to educate them, to allow the bad person the opporunity to learn more about himself, and recognize what is good.

That said, I have seen some pretty sick fictional characterizations of people who, claiming to fully recognize good, exalt bad. The archetypal villain. If there are such people in the world, I might amend my ideas, but so far I have not read about nor met any real people that fit that bill.

Mmmmmm... you (Willamena) are rapidly approaching god status (complete with tiki statue with a nice inscription and your very own fish-pond)..!! :)

Part of the "it is" is what we call "the storm", which for no apparent reason makes a BIG mess and kills people.

This we interpret as showing us that sometimes it's just time to demonstrate the fact that "it is" simply has to show us that time for us is limited, and not re-educate us that it is.

In other words, "it is" says: "WHAM,.. now Iako is dead, his time was shorter than he thought. Not because he did anything wrong. Just "because". Are you satisfied with what you've done with your time..?"

We are all parts of "it is", as are the birds and the fish.

The birds eat the fish.

One part of "it is" consuming another part is obvious.

We treat not-so-bad acts by other punishments. Most having to do with ridicule and their having to accept (to swallow) the insults.

We treat really bad acts as cause for the ultimate re-education.

We become the storm.

Atheist here and I believe that when we die, we're dead. I used to be a Christian and believed in heaven and hell but then I developed a sense of smell and the overpowering stench of bullshit converted me. I now sleep in on Sundays, working off the hangover produced by the previous night's "activities".

Terminalia would class himself as an 'eye for an eye' person rather than a 'love thy neighbour' guy then, yeah?


Quotes : Terminalia
"i respect your right to believe in whatever you want, provided its not hurting anyone or anything."
"Yeah but the Atheist knows also deep down there only really fooling themself lol"
"No Id just feel sorry for them [atheists]."

In response to your earlier question, i do know what respect is. I show respect to all that show me respect. You seem to lack this skill. [See above, or previous post where i group your childish insults from one post 8) ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
I would "scrutinize" that a 'bad' person is a loss to humanity - regardless of how much they were disliked, they are still representative of humanity. I would argue that there are no 'bad' people, just people who do bad things. People look at histories 'Monsters' like Hitler or Stalin, or even a one-time murderer, and ignore any good things they may have done in favour of exalting the bad as representative of them. In a way, it's the same as the culture argument earlier in this thread - the totality of the man cannot be judged by a few actions, no matter how bad they were, but the actions of the man are informed by his being a part of humanity. In the religious view, every spirit has "future value".


As I said, I probably didn't explain it in a manner that truly reflected the complexities I intended.

Without some of the monsters who I (tentitively) would describe as having no net advantage to humanity, the dynamics of the system would be different. Maybe we would have never had speace-travel as we know it if not for the events of WW2 and maybe this would mean there'd not be the means for humanity to prevent the next asteroid hitting. Or maybe it would turn out happily in that world and not this for some reason.

No, my main point was about death being loss of information (at least some of which is the executable program that we all run in the form of our characters, conciousness and automatic reactions to the world). That is what I grieve for in others' deaths and what I feel regret about, in advance and unknowledgable about the facts, for my own. In the short term, I could imagine some theoretical characters and people (albeit based upon the characatures of people who exist) whose deletion from the world through the act of death does not deplete the sum of all happiness, but these would be the exception and we haven't really got the resources to fully explore how a world without the contribution of certain people might have been better or worse, especialyl butterfuly-effects and all. A good man could leave the world in disarray on his death, a bad man could leave the world united, perhaps against his unjust cause or perhaps through some almost unrelated occurence. As to individual essense, however, maybe I ought to start believing in the Ancient Egyption system of the heart being weighed against the feather of justice (or some-such symbol) in the afterlife so that the gods may judge you accordingly.

Ahhhhh.. do I smell Physicist..!! :) Excellent..! (( at least an Engineer [er..scientist?].. ))

And that massive uncertainty of "differential value of the constructive bad man versus the destructive good man" makes my people not overly concerned as to the value of any individual's time in the world.

When anyone's time could be, and should be, of incredible value, then no one person's time is of any particular superior value than any other.

"When the sky and the sea are the same color, the world looks VERY STRANGE..!?" :) (( just an old saying of my people ))

The loss of information due to the death of any individual is simply the loss of potential information. Fuel for imagination.

And perhaps the lesson is to use your imagination, as it points to more things to marvel at within "it is", as my people would say. :)

Atheist here and I believe that when we die, we're dead. I used to be a Christian and believed in heaven and hell but then I developed a sense of smell and the overpowering stench of bullshit converted me. I now sleep in on Sundays, working off the hangover produced by the previous night's "activities".

Are you an atheist, or an anti-christian..? :)

Are you an atheist, or an anti-christian..? :)

I guess a little of both. I don't believe in a creator or take part in any sort of organized religion, I also don't worship anything. However, I'm against christians to a point where they deny the evidences that show the errancies within their own scriptures and also try to support the FACT of evolution and try to suppress it within society. That stuff just irritates me :headbang:

BTW, this is Squirrel Poop. Looks like I was logged in under the wrong name :D

BTW, this is Squirrel Poop. Looks like I was logged in under the wrong name :D

I agree with this retard :D

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.

Atheists are stupid? So you've just written off Buddha, Einstein, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Richard Hawking, etc. all as stupid? Seems a bit unplausable to me. I don't think all theists are stupid.

I don't like the idea of having to live forever. It is strange how the Bible is so incredibly vague on what Heaven is like and Christians do not really discuss what it will be like [Hell gets talked about more often] I cannot imagine any existence which would not be determined by wanting things and getting bored when you don't them, except for occasional moments of satisfaction or contemplation here and there. I can live one life of this, but to live forever seems not a nice concept! After all, to live is to suffer. I think it is funny how the Buddhist nirvana is so different from Christian/Muslim ideas of Heaven. Nirvana is a state of nothingness, where you don't feel anything; that sounds almost like going back to what it was like before we were born. I like this idea better than some future Kingdom where we continue to live as before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Are you an atheist, or an anti-christian..?


I guess a little of both. I don't believe in a creator or take part in any sort of organized religion, I also don't worship anything. However, I'm against christians to a point where they deny the evidences that show the errancies within their own scriptures and also try to support the FACT of evolution and try to suppress it within society. That stuff just irritates me

BTW, this is Squirrel Poop. Looks like I was logged in under the wrong name

:)

So you're just irritated by dogmatists and semi-hemi-demi-believers..!?

Me too,... especially proselytizing ones..!

Just treat them as you would any other salesman.

I'm against christians to a point where they deny the evidences that show the errancies within their own scriptures and also try to support the FACT of evolution and try to suppress it within society. That stuff just irritates me :headbang:

BTW, this is Squirrel Poop. Looks like I was logged in under the wrong name :D

Most of the younger Christians in my country share your point. Don't pull all Christians over the same wall. I'm non practicing catholic. Probably not considered a "sincere christian" by the hard core fundamentalists :p I don't need a book to tell me how to find a God, my God, God or whatever word you want to call it. Hmm then again, most of the young people around here won't say I'm catholic or Christian. Christianity isn't something people around here discuss often. Church doesn't have power anymore since about 50 years I guess. Hopefully it stays this way for long time. To some point most of the people are in search of something spiritual, but it doesn't have to come from a book or a priest. Being Catholic is more part of your culture than really a religion to me. An enheritance sort of speak.

BTW Chritianity isn't the only religion with ehm "errancies within their own scriptures". The scriptures were written when one still believed the world was flat and little green men stole pies from a windowsill :p

Most of the younger Christians in my country share your point. Don't pull all Christians over the same wall. I'm non practicing catholic. Probably not considered a "sincere christian" by the hard core fundamentalists :p I don't need a book to tell me how to find a God, my God, God or whatever word you want to call it. Hmm then again, most of the young people around here won't say I'm catholic or Christian. Christianity isn't something people around here discuss often. Church doesn't have power anymore since about 50 years I guess. Hopefully it stays this way for long time. To some point most of the people are in search of something spiritual, but it doesn't have to come from a book or a priest. Being Catholic is more part of your culture than really a religion to me. An enheritance sort of speak.

BTW Chritianity isn't the only religion with ehm "errancies within their own scriptures". The scriptures were written when one still believed the world was flat and little green men stole pies from a windowsill :p

Yeah, I'm not condemning all christians (even though I don't share the belief in a creator I have no SOLID evidence to show it's untrue), just the ones that deny what science has proven and won't even look at the facts that back it up. Two good examples, yes you'll laugh, my father-in-law thinks dinosaurs are a hoax and my wife thinks that evolution takes more faith to believe than a christian God (although, she most likely gets that thinking from her dad who's actually a great guy, we just disagree on this one subject). It makes life difficult sometimes when I see my neice and nephew being told (while at the Baltimore zoo no less) that dinosaurs aren't real. I almost flipped out but decided to just walk away and bite my tongue. My own baby daughter is now baptized and I made a promise to my wife that I wouldn't stop her from taking her to church, but if someday she asks me why I don't go and what I believe in, I won't hold back anything.

Oops, made a mistake in my statement earlier! Here's a correction (in red):
However, I'm against christians to a point where they deny the evidences that show the errancies within their own scriptures and also try to deny the FACT of evolution and try to suppress it within society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaidersNation
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.



Atheists are stupid? So you've just written off Buddha, Einstein, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Richard Hawking, etc. all as stupid? Seems a bit unplausable to me. I don't think all theists are stupid.

I don't like the idea of having to live forever. It is strange how the Bible is so incredibly vague on what Heaven is like and Christians do not really discuss what it will be like [Hell gets talked about more often] I cannot imagine any existence which would not be determined by wanting things and getting bored when you don't them, except for occasional moments of satisfaction or contemplation here and there. I can live one life of this, but to live forever seems not a nice concept! After all, to live is to suffer. I think it is funny how the Buddhist nirvana is so different from Christian/Muslim ideas of Heaven. Nirvana is a state of nothingness, where you don't feel anything; that sounds almost like going back to what it was like before we were born. I like this idea better than some future Kingdom where we continue to live as before.

I'm an a-theist, yet a very religious one, and I get MUCH more "resistance" to my beliefs from atheists than I do from "believers".

But then,.. I violate a basic proposition of what atheists believe, which is that atheism cannot be religious.

"Atheists" are accused of being "stupid" because they are perceived as "materialistic amoral hyper-cerebralitic ego-maniacs" by some non-atheists.

Of course "believers" are accused of being stupid because THEY are perceived as "immaterialistic judgmental poo-headed ego-maniacs" by some atheists.

Since you don't have the option to live forever, that's pretty much off the table. :)

The "afterlife" to me (a religious a-theist) is not "life-like-this-one in heaven".

That's just silly.

(( Anyone want to agrue FOR "life-like-this-one in heaven"..?! ))

I find atheism to be lVERY largely a product of anti-christianity. Most atheists have essentially adopted the religion of being anti-christian.

My opinion would be that you are one of these.

So does death and/or dying "signify" (mean) to you, personally..?

Ahhhhh.. do I smell Physicist..!! :) Excellent..! (( at least an Engineer [er..scientist?].. ))
Computer professional by occupation, programmer by hobby, armchair scientist by way of a pasttime, inveterate reader of fact and fiction and you-name-it-I-read-it by essence. I'd say you were fairly close, especially given how complicated my actual parameters are...


And that massive uncertainty of "differential value of the constructive bad man versus the destructive good man" makes my people not overly concerned as to the value of any individual's time in the world.
While I don't share your people's exact interpretation I would say that yes, like Doc Brown explaining how McFly's spending of a small sum of money in the local cinema could have changed future events for the bad, it isn't so much that insignificant actions don't add up to anything in the future as that the sum is not a simple addition but a complex hashing algorithm that produces wildly separated results from two otherwise identical situations in which only a minor aspect was originally changed. As 'evil' acts might encourage an act of charity by another, and as a 'good' activity might be subverted or taken advantage of by one who is bad, the nature of the universe is on a knife edge and while trends can continue and escalate in a single direction, the possibilities of a form of inverse feedback affecting the trends is such that the 'probability cones' of universal states arising from good and evil decisions for any one point in time overlap significantly at any reasonable distance through the time dimension (while also encompassing mutually exclusive extremes). (Of course, these are cones representing the perturbations and uncertainties that we cannot resolve, which can only be narrowed by greater understanding of the universe...)

When anyone's time could be, and should be, of incredible value, then no one person's time is of any particular superior value than any other.
In the long-term, no. In the short term, I might well be deemed to have wasted a significant amount of time (in terms of what else I might have been doing, though I leave it up to the dear reader as to how much time of theirs I am wasting) in writing this missive and thus be less valuable to humanity because of it. If the perpetuality of these statements is proven and they find themselves forming the basis of a new world understanding (and, having voiced the possibility, I can be reasonably sure that they will not) then my long-term contribution to the world is increased instead, immeasurably so. Of course, that is the trouble. It is immeasurable... Probably even with hindsight.

"When the sky and the sea are the same color, the world looks VERY STRANGE..!?" :) (( just an old saying of my people ))
Sounds very familiar, though being not nautical (nor even coastal) myself I cannot bring to mind where I might have heard that before. (If it is fully your own creation, I congratulate you for your insight. I have the feeling it is similar to a proven and well-regarded phrase and so to have succesfully developed something akin to a provably successful meme through indepenant thought is an achievement.)

The loss of information due to the death of any individual is simply the loss of potential information. Fuel for imagination.
I think I would phrase it as being that the interaction of information begets new information (though in essence I would suggest it recombines the sum of all contributory data into new streams, sometimes amplifying one source stream, someties full merging of mixing the two in unknowable ways, but never totally destroying). Potential information is that which is possible to arise through the complex probabilities (it is those cones again) and the removal of information sources by reversion of the source (experience-laden braincells converting into a highly complex but, to us, unreadable aftermath of decomposition that might instead affect the life-cycle of a future plant seeking mineral nutrients in the soil within which the deceased is interred) remove the possibilities that required the interaction of the derivative information (at least until we can read minds in slices or recover the original state, beyond all hopes of entropic entanglement, and even then it will be different...)


And perhaps the lesson is to use your imagination, as it points to more things to marvel at within "it is", as my people would say. :)
Interesting, but one cannot really carry philosophy much further on the ground-rules so far described. The uncertainties of life are too great to take excessive advantage of such statements.

I'm an a-theist, yet a very religious one, and I get MUCH more "resistance" to my beliefs from atheists than I do from "believers".

But then,.. I violate a basic proposition of what atheists believe, which is that atheism cannot be religious.

"Atheists" are accused of being "stupid" because they are perceived as "materialistic amoral hyper-cerebralitic ego-maniacs" by some non-atheists.

Of course "believers" are accused of being stupid because THEY are perceived as "immaterialistic judgmental poo-headed ego-maniacs" by some atheists.

Since you don't have the option to live forever, that's pretty much off the table. :)

The "afterlife" to me (a religious a-theist) is not "life-like-this-one in heaven".

That's just silly.

(( Anyone want to agrue FOR "life-like-this-one in heaven"..?! ))

I find atheism to be lVERY largely a product of anti-christianity. Most atheists have essentially adopted the religion of being anti-christian.

My opinion would be that you are one of these.

So does death and/or dying "signify" (mean) to you, personally..?


Your opinion is wrong. Buddhism is atheistic and that existed before Jesus was ever born. In Britain [where I am], we're not quite so uptight about religion and so a lot of atheists are actually sympathetic to Christian ethics; I have said before that I am of such persuasion.

It seems to me that most Christians do not have anything other than a vague conception of Heaven. However, when I have heard such ideas expressed, it does seem to be like this life, except with more happiness. However, I honestly can't imagine a life of any sort which can be continuously happy throughout eternity. Can you perhaps enlighten me and describe it?

I did mention nirvana in my last post, so I don't think that you can accuse me of avoiding other views. What is your "religious" atheism? How did you draw your conclusion that I am a crude anti-Christian atheist, when I expressed sympathy with a Buddhist view.

Death does represent the end of our consciousness. It is something that our inner-nature rebels against, but it isn't really something that we should fear. Death is often painful, although that pain lies on this side of death i.e. in life. Death means no more suffering and no more boredom, as well as no more pleasure. As I said before, it's just like the time before we were born. I don't get disturbed when I think to myself, "I didn't exist in 1940", so why should I get disturbed at thinking, "I won't exist in 2040".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Ahhhhh.. do I smell Physicist..!! Excellent..! (( at least an Engineer [er..scientist?].. ))

Computer professional by occupation, programmer by hobby, armchair scientist by way of a pasttime, inveterate reader of fact and fiction and you-name-it-I-read-it by essence. I'd say you were fairly close, especially given how complicated my actual parameters are...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And that massive uncertainty of "differential value of the constructive bad man versus the destructive good man" makes my people not overly concerned as to the value of any individual's time in the world.

While I don't share your people's exact interpretation I would say that yes, like Doc Brown explaining how McFly's spending of a small sum of money in the local cinema could have changed future events for the bad, it isn't so much that insignificant actions don't add up to anything in the future as that the sum is not a simple addition but a complex hashing algorithm that produces wildly separated results from two otherwise identical situations in which only a minor aspect was originally changed. As 'evil' acts might encourage an act of charity by another, and as a 'good' activity might be subverted or taken advantage of by one who is bad, the nature of the universe is on a knife edge and while trends can continue and escalate in a single direction, the possibilities of a form of inverse feedback affecting the trends is such that the 'probability cones' of universal states arising from good and evil decisions for any one point in time overlap significantly at any reasonable distance through the time dimension (while also encompassing mutually exclusive extremes). (Of course, these are cones representing the perturbations and uncertainties that we cannot resolve, which can only be narrowed by greater understanding of the universe...)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
When anyone's time could be, and should be, of incredible value, then no one person's time is of any particular superior value than any other.


In the long-term, no. In the short term, I might well be deemed to have wasted a significant amount of time (in terms of what else I might have been doing, though I leave it up to the dear reader as to how much time of theirs I am wasting) in writing this missive and thus be less valuable to humanity because of it. If the perpetuality of these statements is proven and they find themselves forming the basis of a new world understanding (and, having voiced the possibility, I can be reasonably sure that they will not) then my long-term contribution to the world is increased instead, immeasurably so. Of course, that is the trouble. It is immeasurable... Probably even with hindsight.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"When the sky and the sea are the same color, the world looks VERY STRANGE..!?" (( just an old saying of my people ))

Sounds very familiar, though being not nautical (nor even coastal) myself I cannot bring to mind where I might have heard that before. (If it is fully your own creation, I congratulate you for your insight. I have the feeling it is similar to a proven and well-regarded phrase and so to have succesfully developed something akin to a provably successful meme through indepenant thought is an achievement.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The loss of information due to the death of any individual is simply the loss of potential information. Fuel for imagination.

I think I would phrase it as being that the interaction of information begets new information (though in essence I would suggest it recombines the sum of all contributory data into new streams, sometimes amplifying one source stream, someties full merging of mixing the two in unknowable ways, but never totally destroying). Potential information is that which is possible to arise through the complex probabilities (it is those cones again) and the removal of information sources by reversion of the source (experience-laden braincells converting into a highly complex but, to us, unreadable aftermath of decomposition that might instead affect the life-cycle of a future plant seeking mineral nutrients in the soil within which the deceased is interred) remove the possibilities that required the interaction of the derivative information (at least until we can read minds in slices or recover the original state, beyond all hopes of entropic entanglement, and even then it will be different...)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And perhaps the lesson is to use your imagination, as it points to more things to marvel at within "it is", as my people would say.


Interesting, but one cannot really carry philosophy much further on the ground-rules so far described. The uncertainties of life are too great to take excessive advantage of such statements.

Ohhhhhhhhhh,... how can I say this...

I LOVE THIS MIND..!! So much to play with..! Super Excellent..!!

I DO love what washes up on this beach..! :D

Ah yes... the basic "tone" of your MANY many words sounds much like another old saying of my people...

"Da world is a big wacky place wit' many many squishy parts, but it's still, at da end of da day, 'A' big wacky place with many many squishy parts,.. and yo'r one of 'em.. so DO stuff dat make yo' auntie happy, OK..!?"

Which might translate roughly to: "Entropy rules, but life has it's fun with the big boss."

Did I say I love this guy's mind for talk-talk..! Yeah,.. I think I did..! Yeehaw..! Hui hou..!

:)

It makes life difficult sometimes when I see my neice and nephew being told (while at the Baltimore zoo no less) that dinosaurs aren't real.

Damn, I feel for you. Its like saying that condoms spread aids. If a priest around here would say dinosaurs never existed, everybody in church would laugh at him and call him a nuttcase. I'm pretty sure our archbisshop doesn't deny the existence of dinosaurs a couple of million years ago or that there was an evolution from ape to man. The proof is so evident that denying it would probably make a man with his upbringing insane. Hm telling what our archbisshop probably thinks isn't a good idea I guess. But I find him to be quite enlightened and rational for a clergyman. Most of our priests understand that people have become too intelligent to believe in fairytales.

I've heard of schools in America that don't teach Darwins evolution theory. That's medieval man! Hopefully this changes soon. Do they still teach that the earth is flat too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I'm an a-theist, yet a very religious one, and I get MUCH more "resistance" to my beliefs from atheists than I do from "believers".

But then,.. I violate a basic proposition of what atheists believe, which is that atheism cannot be religious.

"Atheists" are accused of being "stupid" because they are perceived as "materialistic amoral hyper-cerebralitic ego-maniacs" by some non-atheists.

Of course "believers" are accused of being stupid because THEY are perceived as "immaterialistic judgmental poo-headed ego-maniacs" by some atheists.

Since you don't have the option to live forever, that's pretty much off the table.

The "afterlife" to me (a religious a-theist) is not "life-like-this-one in heaven".

That's just silly.

(( Anyone want to argue FOR "life-like-this-one in heaven"..?! ))

I find atheism to be VERY largely a product of anti-christianity. Most atheists have essentially adopted the religion of being anti-christian.

My opinion would be that you are one of these.

So does death and/or dying "signify" (mean) to you, personally..?



Your opinion is wrong. Buddhism is atheistic and that existed before Jesus was ever born. In Britain [where I am], we're not quite so uptight about religion and so a lot of atheists are actually sympathetic to Christian ethics; I have said before that I am of such persuasion.

It seems to me that most Christians do not have anything other than a vague conception of Heaven. However, when I have heard such ideas expressed, it does seem to be like this life, except with more happiness. However, I honestly can't imagine a life of any sort which can be continuously happy throughout eternity. Can you perhaps enlighten me and describe it?

I did mention nirvana in my last post, so I don't think that you can accuse me of avoiding other views. What is your "religious" atheism? How did you draw your conclusion that I am a crude anti-Christian atheist, when I expressed sympathy with a Buddhist view.

Death does represent the end of our consciousness. It is something that our inner-nature rebels against, but it isn't really something that we should fear. Death is often painful, although that pain lies on this side of death i.e. in life. Death means no more suffering and no more boredom, as well as no more pleasure. As I said before, it's just like the time before we were born. I don't get disturbed when I think to myself, "I didn't exist in 1940", so why should I get disturbed at thinking, "I won't exist in 2040".

Oh,.. I'm glad there are other people than mine who are both a-theistic and religious..! I meet so few.. :)

I still think that most people who would describe themselves with the word "Atheist" would be from christian cultures,.. though that's rather self-selective as the word is FROM a christian culture. Which is actually my point.

My point being, that most (christian culture originated) atheists ARE atheists due to some negative reaction to some form of christianity. And which I would therefore describe as "anti-christian" (in rebellion to christianity).

I can't enlighten you on the "happy-forever-in-heaven" thing, because my people believe that at death you are no more, other than what you did during life, which carries on after your death, which we consider "the after-life",.. ie. what happens after you die, in the world,.. which is the only place there is.

So,.. for us,.. no heaven. No heck. Nothing but "the after life where we can't do anything ever again" and only others opinions of our existence continue on.

"I didn't exist in 1940", so why should I get disturbed at thinking, "I won't exist in 2040".

Ahh..! The "Big Happy Unknown Iaku" story... YES..! Sounds familiar..! :)

"Nobody knew Iaku when his mom's grandma was yet to be born.. nobody knew him when the son of his grandson died.. But Iaku still was... and there's the pond he made for us, right over there... so be happy for him when he smiles on you when you do things that make those who won't know you happy..!"

Iakeokeo, do any of your "people" actually exist?

Iakeokeo, do any of your "people" actually exist?

Well,... we like to THINK so..! :)

At least I do,... unless I am some god or spirit that I don't believe in typing at some celestial keyboard to all you puny mortals...

..which I don't believe is anywhere NEARLY as plausible as me and my people existing.

:)

I've heard of schools in America that don't teach Darwins evolution theory. That's medieval man! Hopefully this changes soon. Do they still teach that the earth is flat too?

Yeah, they're called Christian-run schools/colleges. It's illegal to teach any Intelligent Design or Creationist ideals within a publicly funded institution as it promotes religious thinking and, therefore, violates the First Amendment. Some creationists will claim that teaching evolution ALSO violates the FA because some people's religious views differ from it. Problem is, evolution is science and is one of the strongest theories within the scientific world (due to the enormous amounts of evidence supporting it).

Ohhhhhhhhhh,... how can I say this...

I LOVE THIS MIND..!! So much to play with..! Super Excellent..!!

.........

Did I say I love this guy's mind for talk-talk..! Yeah,.. I think I did..! Yeehaw..! Hui hou..!

:)

The bad news is I'm not available for further talk-talk until... well, I'm not sure if I'm around over the weekend or not, but I'm departing now and may or may not be around on Monday.

But at least you see how my mind works, and why I'm mildly distressed to think that there's a time when the mind will no longer be able to appreciate the world in the way it does now (and yet hopeful that the world will appreciate my mind and be reinforced by its meager contributions, even after death) but then that's what I perceive happens. Which brings us back to the subject of an athiest (or, as I previously professed, an agnostic such as I) 'dieing' [sic] Full circle anyone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roccan
I've heard of schools in America that don't teach Darwins evolution theory. That's medieval man! Hopefully this changes soon. Do they still teach that the earth is flat too?


Yeah, they're called Christian-run schools/colleges. It's illegal to teach any Intelligent Design or Creationist ideals within a publicly funded institution as it promotes religious thinking and, therefore, violates the First Amendment. Some creationists will claim that teaching evolution ALSO violates the FA because some people's religious views differ from it. Problem is, evolution is science and is one of the strongest theories within the scientific world (due to the enormous amounts of evidence supporting it).

We don't have any of those dinosaur bones on the island, maybe too much sand, but we have all these birds that look pretty similar, 'cept they're all a little different...

We also have seen the same birds, but different, on the neighboring islands, way far away,.. farther than a bird can fly,.. unless they get caught in the big storm.

We just figure they all have the same mom and papa at some time past.

Can't persecute people for what they see, eh..!? Or can you....?

And the world is a ball,... like the moon,.. don't people look up in this America place..?

:)

Do you really think I care? :)
Just as much a I care about your opinions of me :D



Romes day was over as an Empire in the west, someone had to run the city after the Goths and Vandals left, naturally this usually falls apon the most organised group at the time, so it was no conspiracy.
Funny thing, after re-reading my post several times, I haven't seen the part where I mention a comspiracy. Granted, I'm near sighted, so who knows? My eyes might've messed up. If you could quote me saying that it's an evil conspiracy?

What I DO see, is me saying "this is why they're discussed. This is why they're seen as important."



Yeah well that cant be helped, people of good moral fibre usually rise to the top, regardless of what faith they follow.
And HOW long have you been living in America? xD




He was but, your not by any chance Jewish are you ?
Nope. And he was...in your eyes. Doesn't make it true to the world. No proof.

I'm an atheist. I like it, it's nice. I don't think atheism is a religion, I think that's a bit silly - it's a belief system, but not all belief systems are religions.

It's true that I don't believe anything I don't have empirical evidence for, but I don't see that as a limiting thing. If I was to list all the things I find beautiful and fascinating about the world I'd be here all day - it's just so astounding. I don't see the need for supernatural and superstitious beliefs, they tend to just leave people misguided and ignorant of the real beauty and complexity of nature.

I do also consider myself a spiritual person, except when it comes to believing in actual spirits. I've incorporated a lot of the philosophies behind religons (especially Buddhism and Christianity) into how I see the world, because they agree with my own beliefs but conceptualise them and express them better than I can.

So what happens when we die? Well, we all die the same way, essentially - for whatever reason, the brain no longer receives sufficient blood flow to nourish its nerve cells, and they start to die. When certain amounts of certain brain areas die then the brain is irreversibly damaged and it's impossible to regain consciousness. The person has died, they are dead.

But there is life after death. You do live on, in the hearts and the minds of the people who love you, the people who remember you, the people you've helped and made a difference to. And yes, also in the minds of the people you've damaged, screwed over, and hurt.

I believe strongly in karma - you must try to keep a balance so that your ethical spreadsheet keeps you in the black. If you do good for people, they will do good to you. If you do bad, you'll get bad back in return.

But there's nothing magical about that, it's just basic statistical probability with a little bit of evolutionary psychology thrown in.

Maff

Oh, to answer the other part of the question: "Are atheists scared of dying?"

Okay, this is tricky for me, 'cause I've suffered suicidal depression on and off for about 20 years. When I'm depressed I'm about as afraid of dying as Homer Simpson is of donuts. It becomes something I crave, and (I think) it's only because my parents are still alive, and would be completely devestated, that I haven't done anything about it.

Also, there's the fact that when you're suffering severe clinical depression, you don't have the energy or cognitive ability to get out of bed, let alone work out a sensible method of killing yourself (and it would so help if we had easier access to firearms in Australia, but I digress).

But when I'm not depressed...? Well, yeah, sometimes I get flashes of real fear. The whole existential non-existence thing can be a bit of a shock. I mean, nobody likes change, and going from, say, existing, to not-existing, would be stressful, I think. But most of the time my fear of dying is for the people around me: I'm terrified of people that I love dying, and I'm terrified of the impact my death would have on the people I love.

I'm not scared of dying. I'm scared of pain. I'm scared of a drawn out terminal illness, especially if people I love know about it. I'm not scared of not existing - my ego is, but the rest of me can cope :)

Maff

consciousness ends. energy
is released, as it is neither created
nor destroyed. a new life arises. it
goes on.

but then, i'm a zen wiccan. what would i know about dying, other than how to spell the word.

Please, I would like to know more about this.

consciousness ends. energy
is released, as it is neither created
nor destroyed. a new life arises. it
goes on.

but then, i'm a zen wiccan. what would i know about dying, other than how to spell the word.
Please, I would like to know more about this.
As would I. It's poetic on many levels.

So did everyone else then.


So - if everyone else is doing it, it's okay. That's a pretty sad excuse for the Chosen people.


lol whatever


And that is the most coherent rebuttal you can contrive?

Try and use logic then, if a people get conquered and dragged off to another country, what do you think these people will be treated as?
Celebrities?


Well, that depends. First, not everyone conquered and dragged off slaves - and among those that did, it wasn't a permenant state of affairs. Egypt, for example, was sometimes expansionist, sometimes not... sometimes they had slaves, sometimes they didn't. In their conflict with Syrians, the Syrians that were taken prisoner became citizens of the Egyptian empire, many rising to prominent positions. I really would advise that you read a few history books.


Somehow I dont think you would have lasted that long, also the ridicule for your modern views from both sexes would have driven you mad after a while.
And you have to stop assuming I havent read the Bible Grave because I usually do, last night I read about Gideon in the old testament, and seeing as your such an expert, could you tell me how he gave God two tests.


I may not have lasted long, but you would certainly have lasted for even less time. The Hebrews would have looked at your beliefs (christianity, supposedly) and executed you on the spot for your heretical bastardisation of their sacred faith.

They were actually more tolerant of atheists.

With regard to Gideon... are you trying to be funny?
So, if I can tell you about Gideon's 'tests' for god, then I'm an expert? That's it?

I wish you could be reasoned with so easily.

I assume you mean the fleece and the dew?

Well who are we to judge why they killed them.


I thought you said you had read the bible?


And whats that?


It is ironic that you need to ask ME what your view of faith is.


Alright I have three middle eastern friends, two are muslim, one was a muslim who converted to Christianity some time back, and they are all friends with each other and me, better?


Sure. It's lovely. And you may even have some friends, too. Although if you are always as rude as you are online...


Well I dont know, you get riled up pretty easily, also telling someone that just before they die they will realise they have lived a pointless life for having faith in something that doesnt according to you exist, isnt wise either, unless you can provide absolute proof of that you can only really say you have no idea either, now that would be wise.


Maybe you will. Maybe you will realise you lived a pointless trivial life.
You still don't understand debate, do you.

You made the assertion that there is an afterlife, therefore, the onus is on YOU to prove it, not me to disprove it.


Oh sorry, only you can go there.


I haven't actually insulted you, though. I asked if you were a teen, because I didn't want to be engaged in this kind of discussion with someone who has little life experience. If you choose to be insulted by that, it says more about you, than about me.

But he is the son of God, whether the Greek name means that or not


Once again. Prove it. Genesis says we are ALL the sons of god.

You missed the point of the 'Christ' question.

One assume that this is because you don't know.

As I said, how can you be a 'christian' if you don't even know what 'christ' means?

And you ignored 'Messiah' there, too.


Shes only a kid, how can she respect you if your putting her up on some kind of pedestal at that age.


She respects me, because I treat her with respect. You should try it.

And, she's only a kid to you. I have no doubts she could argue theological rings around someone like you.


:) OK whatever makes you happy


What would make me happier, is if you quit the insults, actually thought about what I said before responding, had any decent arguments (rather than just "is", "is not", "is", "is not" and "well, the bible says..."

No no the confusion is all yours, I have been baptised, born again as in spiritually, not physically..


So - you don't know what born again means, either?

Admit it... you're not a christian. I will agree that this was a very funny joke, but that you need to do better research next time...


So this gives you free reign to do or say what you like to me because Im a Christian and if I respond in kind I am then not a Christian, right?
Wrong, verbal abuse would be laughed at, physical abuse if it was possible would be met with the same in return, sorry but turning the other cheek isnt really my go, especially with people who attack with a lack of fear because they expect the other person to be constrained to return in kind by their beliefs.


Actually. Yes. It does. I have no 'religious' restriction on me... I can say what I please. (Although, you may not have noticed, it isn't me that is being insulting).

Since you 'claim' to be a christian, you are supposed to act in a christian manner. So, that 'pride' woud have to go, for a start. And that 'rebellious spirit'.

Look to Paul for your example.

As I take your view on my faith.


Was that a response to what I said? Or just trying to follow up on the insult you attempted, but failed?

Ah the key words you seem to have missed here were 'sad and frustrated woman', which of course I dont hope you are.
I dont sympathise with anyone purely all the time because of their sex or age.
Sometimes I feel sorry for women in general but not in an unkind way.


You think I misunderstood? Looking at that comment, in the context of all the hate you have been pouring out so far...

You come across as very immature.


I don't think so. It wasn't me that started the name calling. And, I am trying to reason with you and debate, rather than just getting 'miffy' and insulting.

Try reading back over the thread - see how many people think I am being immature. Then look back over the replies to your savage missives.

No thats how you percieve them, quite deliberately too.


If you cannot say it in such a way that it is immediately apparent that they are NOT insults... don't say it.

My attitude towards teenagers and women is fine, you might judge some of them to be old fashioned, but as long as no hate is involved then I'm quite comfortable with how I view them.

Old fashioned? You mean, like in the bible where women are described as vessels? Where a woman's only purpose is reproduction? Where a woman is forbidden to ask a question in the church, as, if she needs to be taught anything, her husband should teach her?

Like, a rebellious teenager should be stoned to death?

You may be comfortable with that. The rest of the world lives in fear and revulsion of that kind of mindset.

your slightly missing the point..

atheists believe there is no god. where as agnostics lackthe belief..

As a member of American Atheists, i have researched this topic alot :P

Actually - the official agnostic line is that: they believe knowing whether or not god exists is beyond the human ability to comprehend.

If that makes me a coward so be it. And no Im not sayin that all religous people go to heaven i just wish not to widen this debate right now on which religon is right or wrong. What I meant be go along with it was like try it at least maybe for a year or something to see how it goes kinda thing. And also as a christian I think my beliefs are right but at a time I was wondering what happens if there is no god etc. And i was like you know what i believe I have felt god if im just makin all this up in my head so be it w/e i certainly don't lose anything

How can you 'try' being a christian? You should somehow 'make' yourself believe in the christ, in the resurrection, in the blood of the lamb?

The only way to 'try' being a is to be a christian - then realise you don't believe it.

A surprisingly large number of atheist HAVE 'tried' it.

You would if you went to hell.

Ah, Terminalia, Terminalia, Terminalia...

Hell doesn't exist, silly rabbit.

No, not even in your good book... try reading it in one of the earlier versions... the 'inspired' word of god, and you'll see what I mean.

Grave, I'm just curious. What are you getting out of your exchanges with Terminalia?

Romes day was over as an Empire in the west, someone had to run the city after the Goths and Vandals left, naturally this usually falls apon the most organised group at the time, so it was no conspiracy.


Incorrect. It was a choice between Mithraism and Chritianity as to which would become the official sanctioned religion of Rome.

Interestingly, christianity was losing that battle until it started to include Mithraism inspired texts, like "Revelations".



Yeah well that cant be helped, people of good moral fibre usually rise to the top, regardless of what faith they follow.


Provided they are christians.


He was but, your not by any chance Jewish are you ?

First: You don't know what Messiah means, either?

Second: Okay - you've attacked women. You've attacked teenagers. Now you are starting in on the Jews.... who are you going to attack next?

Grave, I'm just curious. What are you getting out of your exchanges with Terminalia?

I really don't know.

I was in a thread discussing, as I do, when along he came.

He picks a fight with any and every comment, apparently without reading most.

I guess I TRY to debate with him because he 'represents' himself as a christian, and I am trying to be inclusive.

I try to debate with him in the hope that there is someone under all the aggression that I could actually have a DEBATE with.

I can happily debate with someone like you. There is a measure of mutual respect, even if I am a godless heathen.

I can happily debate with Iakeokeo, when we a) understand each other and b) can leave the culture thing alone.

I don't know. It's a lot of work, whatever. But I keep doing it, hoping there'll be a glimmer of light. :(

Yes. Exactly.

Whether it is my own death or that of someone else, with the expiry of the earthly body the compond information that makes up that person's experiences and character are lost to the world we know. If we are lucky, pale imitations of that character and their knowledge will live on after them memetically, but the master program is deleted and no more valued output will be forthcoming from the original source.

As an inveterate hoarder of miscelaneous but 'interesting' information and junk, I think this view is entirely consistent with how I deal with real-world data and 'objects of interest'. Things should not be just thrown away, but should be kept as long as possible in the hope that they are of use to someone, and this includes ideas and memories and personality. This applies almost universally but (for example) a very bad person dying does not (on balance) prove a loss to humanity, much the same as some physical things (e.g. toxic waste) should be destroyed or denatured if proven to have no future value. This is a simplified description of my system of morality and I'm sure does not stand up to close scrutiny in the form I have just presented it, but I hope you get the idea.


As to after death, while I don't hold out much hope for a divine afterlife (within which the vital essence of the deceased lives on and continues to be the eternal resource that the mortal realm has lost) I class myself as Agnostic and therefore open to the possibility of such a possibility. I'm equally open to the possibility that a form of reincarnation occurs that (a bit like Hawking's newly-conceived black holes) allows 'lost' information to be brought back into our world, albeit in a scrambled manner with only the barest hint of what came before.


I would like to think that I am positively contributing to the resources of the world, that my living memories and knowledge are a useful reource and that after my demise the positive effects of my existence will live on in some form, but I can only hope, and do not have any intrinsic trust in any diety or spiritual process. In the immortal words of Popeye "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam" and I hope that I'm able to entrust that to you all in a positive manner, that my faults do not overwhelm my usefulness.

Right, enough self-abasement, please feel free to continue with the arguments... :)

Is it morally acceptable for me to reply to this post, JUST SO that it get's brought up again?

I think this post pretty much sums up Atheistic attitude to death. It's not about what comes after, it's about what you acheived before.

It's true that I don't believe anything I don't have empirical evidence for, but I don't see that as a limiting thing. If I was to list all the things I find beautiful and fascinating about the world I'd be here all day - it's just so astounding. I don't see the need for supernatural and superstitious beliefs, they tend to just leave people misguided and ignorant of the real beauty and complexity of nature.
Omens and superstitions, or things of "spontaneous significance" as they are known, are a natural part of being human, a part that has been denied for a very long time, because of religion's belief that divination was A Bad Thing (bad, I assume, because not just *anybody* should be able to talk with god), and because of science's belief that what happens subjectively is inferior to what happens objectively.

Divination (or think-talk with the part of God within us), and its outward expression in prayer, is also a natural thing. Omens are think-talk that we 'see' with our eyes in everyday happenings. 'Superstition' is the name that Man the Objective Observer gives to think-talk that Man the Experiencer 'knows' and which Man the Observer can never repeat experimentally or experientially. This is usually accompanied by riddicule, hence Man the Experiencer has learned to either deny or dismiss his own think-talk.

(PS Thank you, Iakeokeo, for giving me a start on a language that might help to express my ideas on my website.)

Also, there's the fact that when you're suffering severe clinical depression, you don't have the energy or cognitive ability to get out of bed, let alone work out a sensible method of killing yourself (and it would so help if we had easier access to firearms in Australia, but I digress).
The firearms restriction has paid off, then, in spades.

I can happily debate with someone like you. There is a measure of mutual respect, even if I am a godless heathen.
I don't know any heathens, myself. ;-)

I don't know. It's a lot of work, whatever. But I keep doing it, hoping there'll be a glimmer of light. :(
That's what I was thinking, that it's a lot of work. It might pay off, but it would seem the current approaches are not working.

I don't know any heathens, myself. ;-)


That's what I was thinking, that it's a lot of work. It might pay off, but it would seem the current approaches are not working.

I know no other way... except to totally ignore him.

Which is the concept I am currently toying with.... but I always expect SO much from people, and I so hate to give up on them...

Atheists For Jesus :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm an atheist. I like it, it's nice. I don't think atheism is a religion, I think that's a bit silly - it's a belief system, but not all belief systems are religions.

It's true that I don't believe anything I don't have empirical evidence for, but I don't see that as a limiting thing. If I was to list all the things I find beautiful and fascinating about the world I'd be here all day - it's just so astounding. I don't see the need for supernatural and superstitious beliefs, they tend to just leave people misguided and ignorant of the real beauty and complexity of nature.

I do also consider myself a spiritual person, except when it comes to believing in actual spirits. I've incorporated a lot of the philosophies behind religons (especially Buddhism and Christianity) into how I see the world, because they agree with my own beliefs but conceptualise them and express them better than I can.

So what happens when we die? Well, we all die the same way, essentially - for whatever reason, the brain no longer receives sufficient blood flow to nourish its nerve cells, and they start to die. When certain amounts of certain brain areas die then the brain is irreversibly damaged and it's impossible to regain consciousness. The person has died, they are dead.

But there is life after death. You do live on, in the hearts and the minds of the people who love you, the people who remember you, the people you've helped and made a difference to. And yes, also in the minds of the people you've damaged, screwed over, and hurt.

I believe strongly in karma - you must try to keep a balance so that your ethical spreadsheet keeps you in the black. If you do good for people, they will do good to you. If you do bad, you'll get bad back in return.

But there's nothing magical about that, it's just basic statistical probability with a little bit of evolutionary psychology thrown in.

Maff

Accountants for Karma..! Nifty..! :)

And if the bad evil guy does really really nasty things all his life, and is never punished for them because he's too powerful, and he dies happily in his really really comfortable bed, with all the best drugs so nothing hurts, where is the karma..? (assuming he has NO mental anguish in his final moments)

Here is my people's opinion,... People remember him for what he's done, all the nasty nasty things, and he becomes one of the many many demons that aunties scare their little ones with to make them think about what they do.

And... since the bad evil guy can't do anything about ANYTHING anymore, he can't (not to say he would if he could) try to make for himself a better memory of him in the people he left behind.

:)

..and the Iakeokeoian savages nod and look around at each other thinking "He knows where we're coming from... nice to see a foreigner with similar ideas to us savages...",... at which point a good "riotous laughter and roll in the sand" session is called for!

Omens and superstitions, or things of "spontaneous significance" as they are known, are a natural part of being human, a part that has been denied for a very long time, because of religion's belief that divination was A Bad Thing (bad, I assume, because not just *anybody* should be able to talk with god), and because of science's belief that what happens subjectively is inferior to what happens objectively.

Divination (or think-talk with the part of God within us), and its outward expression in prayer, is also a natural thing. Omens are think-talk that we 'see' with our eyes in everyday happenings. 'Superstition' is the name that Man the Objective Observer gives to think-talk that Man the Experiencer 'knows' and which Man the Observer can never repeat experimentally or experientially. This is usually accompanied by riddicule, hence Man the Experiencer has learned to either deny or dismiss his own think-talk.

(PS Thank you, Iakeokeo, for giving me a start on a language that might help to express my ideas on my website.)

It is interesting to me that Christianity hates omens and divination so.

Joseph was a diviner of dreams, after all.

And, in our English translation of "Tow`ebah" (which is a 'bad thing", like ritual impurity) is "Abomination".

Abominate: from Latin "abominatus" - to regard as an ill omen.

Second: Okay - you've attacked women. You've attacked teenagers. Now you are starting in on the Jews.... who are you going to attack next?

I dont know whether you have a mental problem or not, Im starting to think so, but I dont come on here attacking people because of their sex or age because I havent, thats your interpretation, and one thats twisted around to present me in a negative light, Im done arguing with you on here as its an exercize in futility with an immature woman like yourself, and although you love to pull the insult card out you have no problem throwing them yourself and dont deny that you have.
Now the latest,I ask someone if their Jewish and you have to say Im attacking them, this shows your true class again.

You have repeatedly called me a liar on here with no proof, )but you like to whineall the time about how much your being insulted),you have also called me wrongly somone who isnt part of what they believe in, as if you could even know that.

Grave, I'm just curious. What are you getting out of your exchanges with Terminalia?

Probably a release of some pent up sexual frustration :)

It is interesting to me that Christianity hates omens and divination so.

Joseph was a diviner of dreams, after all.

And, in our English translation of "Tow`ebah" (which is a 'bad thing", like ritual impurity) is "Abomination".

Abominate: from Latin "abominatus" - to regard as an ill omen.

Not all of Christianity hates omens and divination. That's just the mainstream opinion.

Not all of Christianity hates omens and divination. That's just the mainstream opinion.

This is also Graves version of Christianity which is always as you might note, presented in mostly a negative light.

It is interesting to me that Christianity hates omens and divination so.

Joseph was a diviner of dreams, after all.

And, in our English translation of "Tow`ebah" (which is a 'bad thing", like ritual impurity) is "Abomination".

Abominate: from Latin "abominatus" - to regard as an ill omen.
Yes, and Daniel, who was a professional astrolger in the court of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon.

Not all of Christianity hates omens and divination. That's just the mainstream opinion.
So, are you "mainsteam"? Do you avoid omens and divination because the Bible tells you to?

This is also Graves version of Christianity which is always as you might note, presented in mostly a negative light.
Actually, much of what Grave argued was in support of Christianity and in opposition to blind faith.

Actually, much of what Grave argued was in support of Christianity and in opposition to blind faith.

lol faiths faith.

"Im done arguing with you on here as its an exercize in futility with an immature woman like yourself, and although you love to pull the insult card out you have no problem throwing them yourself and dont deny that you have."

Lol. I think you insulted him there as you seem to put women down ("may have a traditional view") so by calling him a woman, you think you are insulting him. Yet if you are your argument is moot. And i dont know where the "immature" bit is going, we could have a poll to see who is more mature. 8)

You know the programs on tv that have people disputing over silly things like a foot of land, or a closed gate or whatever (neighbours from hell etc(no pun intended)), and right at the start you distinguish who is the bad guy?

Small thought, why are there thiests here that havent been atheists, since the original post was a directed towards them only? It could be preachers! Arg! Run!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Second: Okay - you've attacked women. You've attacked teenagers. Now you are starting in on the Jews.... who are you going to attack next?


I dont know whether you have a mental problem or not, Im starting to think so, but I dont come on here attacking people because of their sex or age because I havent, thats your interpretation, and one thats twisted around to present me in a negative light, Im done arguing with you on here as its an exercize in futility with an immature woman like yourself, and although you love to pull the insult card out you have no problem throwing them yourself and dont deny that you have.
Now the latest,I ask someone if their Jewish and you have to say Im attacking them, this shows your true class again.

You have repeatedly called me a liar on here with no proof, )but you like to whineall the time about how much your being insulted),you have also called me wrongly somone who isnt part of what they believe in, as if you could even know that.

Grave has this need to be offended and "persecuted", and/or see everything as a "death-match".

Which is fine, as it does tend to stimulate the conversation. :)

lol faiths faith.
Faith accompanied by a reason to have it is much more meaningful.

Not all of Christianity hates omens and divination. That's just the mainstream opinion.

I'm really talking about the bible version.

I appreciate that an increasing number of Christians don't feel bound to the EVERY word of the Word.

"Im done arguing with you on here as its an exercize in futility with an immature woman like yourself, and although you love to pull the insult card out you have no problem throwing them yourself and dont deny that you have."

Lol. I think you insulted him there as you seem to put women down ("may have a traditional view") so by calling him a woman, you think you are insulting him. Yet if you are your argument is moot. And i dont know where the "immature" bit is going, we could have a poll to see who is more mature. 8)

I wonder if Terminalia really thinks I AM a woman?

Or, if, as you suggest... this is just another one of his little 'pricks' for me to kick against.

Actually, much of what Grave argued was in support of Christianity and in opposition to blind faith.

Thank you. At least someone can see it.

It isn't Christianity that I rail against. It is the enforcement of beliefs on others 'by divine instruction'. It is the one people that are supposed to be 'separate' (according to the book), trying to be THE force of change in society. It is the people who call themselves 'christian' (or any other religion) without knowing what it means, or how to live a 'christian' life.

It is trying to shape a modern, multi-cultural world into the image of a nomadic tribe's code of laws.

I am of the impression that someone who claims to be 'christian', but doesn't UNDERSTAND what christianity IS, does a great disservice to 'their' religion.

I also think that if you follow without question, it isn't really YOUR religion... you are just doing what you are told. Pray Now. Eat Now. Sleep Now. Worship Now. I would rather live a life shaped by my own reason, than by a 'priest' telling me it is so.

The way I figure it... if you really THINK about it, and STILL decide that christianity is for you, then it's all good. But, if you don't think about it, and live a life offering lip-service, you'll be living a lie. A lie to yourself.

Now - Actually following the teachings of Jesus? That's a different matter.

But, as I have said so many times before... it's just my opinion.

Grave has this need to be offended and "persecuted", and/or see everything as a "death-match".

Which is fine, as it does tend to stimulate the conversation. :)

And you were doing so well, too...

So, are you "mainsteam"? Do you avoid omens and divination because the Bible tells you to?

No. I'm a Christian Mystic.

Sorry, I know the response is a bit late.

Faith accompanied by a reason to have it is much more meaningful.

Is this about needing proof?

Read about Thomas after Jesus returns from the grave, and how he wouldnt believe until he touched Jesus's wounds, he needed proof to believe.

I feel its right, so thats good enough, call it blind if you like.
And I have enough good reasons to have faith in Jesus also.

Grave has this need to be offended and "persecuted", and/or see everything as a "death-match".

Which is fine, as it does tend to stimulate the conversation. :)Yes I must say its great to hear a bore.

And you were doing so well, too...
Cant handle the truth?

Puh-lease, Grave has presented his arguments rationally backed by logic - your's have been nothing but dogma backed by emotion.

If there were a poll asking which of you two had debated their side of the argument better, I'd guarantee that grave would win by a landslide...

Puh-lease, Grave has presented his arguments rationally backed by logic - your's have been nothing but dogma backed by emotion.

If there were a poll asking which of you two had debated their side of the argument better, I'd guarantee that grave would win by a landslide...

Which two are you talking about..? Grave and I..? :)

The thing is,.. as I've stated many many times, I don't "debate" in this realm of thought.

I merely give my opinion. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Actually, much of what Grave argued was in support of Christianity and in opposition to blind faith.


Thank you. At least someone can see it.

It isn't Christianity that I rail against. It is the enforcement of beliefs on others 'by divine instruction'. It is the one people that are supposed to be 'separate' (according to the book), trying to be THE force of change in society. It is the people who call themselves 'christian' (or any other religion) without knowing what it means, or how to live a 'christian' life.

It is trying to shape a modern, multi-cultural world into the image of a nomadic tribe's code of laws.

I am of the impression that someone who claims to be 'christian', but doesn't UNDERSTAND what christianity IS, does a great disservice to 'their' religion.

I also think that if you follow without question, it isn't really YOUR religion... you are just doing what you are told. Pray Now. Eat Now. Sleep Now. Worship Now. I would rather live a life shaped by my own reason, than by a 'priest' telling me it is so.

The way I figure it... if you really THINK about it, and STILL decide that christianity is for you, then it's all good. But, if you don't think about it, and live a life offering lip-service, you'll be living a lie. A lie to yourself.

Now - Actually following the teachings of Jesus? That's a different matter.

But, as I have said so many times before... it's just my opinion.

Telling people what to do is very rude, to my people.

No one "understands" what christianity is. It's a huge mess of precepts, history, ambiguities, politics, blah blah and blah, that is impossible to reconcile with itself, much less actually understand.

If you think you understand it, you are quite the unique genius..! :)

You (Grave) are VERY averse to doing what others say. That is obvious. And I commend you for it..!

I am also VERY averse to blind obedience. It's a great way to get eaten by the man-eating-clams, if you know what I mean.... :)

i just have a couple of statements...
GO KERRY,DOWN WITH BUSH

GO FREEDOM FROM RELIGON. its time for the Right to step down and allow people who protect all peoples rights to come.

Puh-lease, Grave has presented his arguments rationally backed by logic - your's have been nothing but dogma backed by emotion.

If there were a poll asking which of you two had debated their side of the argument better, I'd guarantee that grave would win by a landslide...

Thank you. :)

Unfortunately, that isn't enough to stop the flaming and baiting. :(

Telling people what to do is very rude, to my people.

No one "understands" what christianity is. It's a huge mess of precepts, history, ambiguities, politics, blah blah and blah, that is impossible to reconcile with itself, much less actually understand.

If you think you understand it, you are quite the unique genius..! :)

You (Grave) are VERY averse to doing what others say. That is obvious. And I commend you for it..!

I am also VERY averse to blind obedience. It's a great way to get eaten by the man-eating-clams, if you know what I mean.... :)

I don't mind doing what others say if there is a GOOD reason.

I won't walk through a mine-field just because someone tells me not to - but, I like to be faced with the information, and left to make my own decisions on it.

And, with something as subjective as religion - I do dislike being told that I am 'blind' or that "I'm going to burn" or whatever.

Now, if I claimed to be part of one of the 'codified' religions - but didn't live according to that faith's most basic precepts - I would deserve to be questioned on it.

Faith is a run along a beach. If your eyes are open, it's fun, comfortable and the scenery is lovely. If your eyes are shut, you are missing half the point of the run, and you may be moments away from ruuning into the rocks, or the surf... or the man-eating clams, of course!

I do believe this might be one of those rare occasions where we agree. :)

Which two are you talking about..? Grave and I..? :)

The thing is,.. as I've stated many many times, I don't "debate" in this realm of thought.

I merely give my opinion. :)

I think you are an innocent party, here, Iakeokeo...

I'm under the impression Fubaria was addressing Terminalia - due to the references of unsupported "dogma".

You state your opinion - this is true. Terminalia, on the other hand is insisting that Christianity is the right and true path, and is willing to argue against any point to the contrary - but has (thus far) failed to support his view.

I guess the difference is that you say this is the world 'as you see it', and Terminalia says this is the world 'as it is'.

i just have a couple of statements...
GO KERRY,DOWN WITH BUSH

GO FREEDOM FROM RELIGON. its time for the Right to step down and allow people who protect all peoples rights to come.

The right TO religion...

The right to laws of and for those who vote for them...

The right to freedom from a powerful minority...

The right to convince others to your side...

All else is blah blah blah....

Is this about needing proof?

Read about Thomas after Jesus returns from the grave, and how he wouldnt believe until he touched Jesus's wounds, he needed proof to believe.

I feel its right, so thats good enough, call it blind if you like.
And I have enough good reasons to have faith in Jesus also.
No, not "proof" in the physical world, as most scientist/athiests mean it. But to have a reason --any reason --to believe what you believe is more meaningful than blindly trusting that others know what they are talking about. There is a difference. You have reasons, good --but "faith" is not the same for people with the two outlooks mentioned above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Telling people what to do is very rude, to my people.

No one "understands" what christianity is. It's a huge mess of precepts, history, ambiguities, politics, blah blah and blah, that is impossible to reconcile with itself, much less actually understand.

If you think you understand it, you are quite the unique genius..!

You (Grave) are VERY averse to doing what others say. That is obvious. And I commend you for it..!

I am also VERY averse to blind obedience. It's a great way to get eaten by the man-eating-clams, if you know what I mean....



I don't mind doing what others say if there is a GOOD reason.

I won't walk through a mine-field just because someone tells me not to - but, I like to be faced with the information, and left to make my own decisions on it.

And, with something as subjective as religion - I do dislike being told that I am 'blind' or that "I'm going to burn" or whatever.

Now, if I claimed to be part of one of the 'codified' religions - but didn't live according to that faith's most basic precepts - I would deserve to be questioned on it.

Faith is a run along a beach. If your eyes are open, it's fun, comfortable and the scenery is lovely. If your eyes are shut, you are missing half the point of the run, and you may be moments away from ruuning into the rocks, or the surf... or the man-eating clams, of course!

I do believe this might be one of those rare occasions where we agree.

Heh he he he he... nah,... we agree on much, I'm sure of it..! :)

Don't be pushed around. Don't be spuriously (and nonsensically) threatened. Don't NOT have fun..!

And very definitely DO be yourself, and say what is right to you, and how you see things..!

Everyone loses if we don't all follow those simple rules.

Why,.. because I say so..!? HECK no..! Because it's what humans know is right. You don't do it that way, and you feel BAD..! :)

"Da' jungle always grows back over the path, no matter how much we tell it not to, or how much we run the path's course... Da jungle just gotta be da jungle, eh..!? And if it didn't, we'd have just paths, and no beautiful jungle any mo'...!" said the old Iakeokeoian wise-ass wise-man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Which two are you talking about..? Grave and I..?

The thing is,.. as I've stated many many times, I don't "debate" in this realm of thought.

I merely give my opinion.


I think you are an innocent party, here, Iakeokeo...

I'm under the impression Fubaria was addressing Terminalia - due to the references of unsupported "dogma".

You state your opinion - this is true. Terminalia, on the other hand is insisting that Christianity is the right and true path, and is willing to argue against any point to the contrary - but has (thus far) failed to support his view.

I guess the difference is that you say this is the world 'as you see it', and Terminalia says this is the world 'as it is'.

Oooooo.. "as it is"..!? I'd like to know how Term gets THAT info...! :)

No, not "proof" in the physical world, as most scientist/athiests mean it. But to have a reason --any reason --to believe what you believe is more meaningful than blindly trusting that others know what they are talking about. There is a difference. You have reasons, good --but "faith" is not the same for people with the two outlooks mentioned above.

I agree. You shouldn't just be a 'drone'.

If the ONLY reason you are christian is because someone said, "god is groovy, and you go to heaven", then you aren't REALLY a christian at all.

But, if reading the holy book fills you with an assurance that it is the 'word of god' (despite the inconsistencies, etc.), and you base your faith on conviction, you have a better argument.

Of course, I personally think you should also read other religious holy texts, other philosophies and other non-canonical 'christian' texts before you make that decision... otherwise I think you are just following what you were shown as commonplace - which isn't the same as true.

Heh he he he he... nah,... we agree on much, I'm sure of it..! :)

Don't be pushed around. Don't be spuriously (and nonsensically) threatened. Don't NOT have fun..!

And very definitely DO be yourself, and say what is right to you, and how you see things..!

Everyone loses if we don't all follow those simple rules.

Why,.. because I say so..!? HECK no..! Because it's what humans know is right. You don't do it that way, and you feel BAD..! :)

"Da' jungle always grows back over the path, no matter how much we tell it not to, or how much we run the path's course... Da jungle just gotta be da jungle, eh..!? And if it didn't, we'd have just paths, and no beautiful jungle any mo'...!" said the old Iakeokeoian wise-ass wise-man.

To be honest, I think you're right.

Our basic philosophies seem similar... it's just details that we bounce off of each other's heads.

:)

Faith is a run along a beach. If your eyes are open, it's fun, comfortable and the scenery is lovely. If your eyes are shut, you are missing half the point of the run, and you may be moments away from ruuning into the rocks, or the surf... or the man-eating clams, of course!
Booya! That's lovely.

But for some of us, even running misses too much. Better to stroll and smell the flowers. ;-)

Oooooo.. "as it is"..!? I'd like to know how Term gets THAT info...! :)

Well, he's got this little book, you see...

And this little book tells him all the 'truth' he ever needs...

And how does he know his book is right?

Well, one of the 'truths' in his book, is that his book is 'true'...

:)

I'll take "As I see it" over "As it is" any day.

Booya! That's lovely.

But for some of us, even running misses too much. Better to stroll and smell the flowers. ;-)

I agree... MY faith is walking in an orchard filled with wild flowers, hand in hand with my loved ones, idling hours on talk of the ramifications of 'truth' and 'beauty'....

but the rocks, and the clams... it needed to be running for the danger to be 'imminent'.

:)

No, not "proof" in the physical world, as most scientist/athiests mean it. But to have a reason --any reason --to believe what you believe is more meaningful than blindly trusting that others know what they are talking about. There is a difference. You have reasons, good --but "faith" is not the same for people with the two outlooks mentioned above.

Because I believe its the truth, and I'll back it to the end.

What reasons do you have to believe in Christ, that puts my faith into a poorer light than yours?

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov,
"For I Have Tasted The Fruit"

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Well, he's got this little book, you see...

And this little book tells him all the 'truth' he ever needs...


Mockery of something you study alot Grave, why do you bother with it then?

Or is this another personal attack, not you of course, all you do is debate, your far too above that, arent you Grave.

And how does he know his book is right?

Its not my book.


Well, one of the 'truths' in his book, is that his book is 'true'...

True it is.
Do you have any mockery for the Koran, is that just someones little book as well?

It has an awful lot of stuff you hate Grave you know like Sharia laws and unjust punishments etc, or is it only Christianity you have a big chip on your shoulder about?

That's the most stupid quote I have ever heard. It's more likely he doesn't exist then he exists just cause there has been no prove. Even every minus-80-IQ should understand that.

That's the most stupid quote I have ever heard. It's more likely he doesn't exist then he exists just cause there has been no prove. Even every minus-80-IQ should understand that.
Worst grammar/comprehension EVAR.

It's merely stating that people shouldn't take the possibility that God exists as proof that he exists. There's also a lot going against God's existance that many don't take into account.

That's the most stupid quote I have ever heard. It's more likely he doesn't exist then he exists just cause there has been no prove. Even every minus-80-IQ should understand that.

Come on, man. This thread has enough hatred already. Calling them beyond foolish isn't going to help anything.

Worst grammar/comprehension EVAR.

It's merely stating that people shouldn't take the possibility that God exists as proof that he exists. There's also a lot going against God's existance that many don't take into account.

Very good point. ;) It's fun stuff to read about.

Because I believe its the truth, and I'll back it to the end.

What reasons do you have to believe in Christ, that puts my faith into a poorer light than yours?
I don't believe in Christ, not the way you probably mean in this sentence. I am not a Christian. But I do believe in the meaning behind the symbol of the Christ, and the message of compassion and forgiving that surrounds it.

But what do you think happens to your soul and mind when you die?

Soul? What is a soul anyway?

The mind? The brain? Teh brain is just a part of the body and will die and rot like the rest of ye.

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.
It may mean something more in the context from which it came, but I read this quote as talking about human nature: that, given a lack of "proof", man will tend towards believing God exists simply because we "long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes". We all need a "Father in Heaven" or a "Mother Earth" to care for us.

When we atheists die we experience brain death. That means no sensations, no new experiences or visual input, just nothing. We become waste products of society that just take up space.

Absolutely nothing happens to us after we die. Apparently blood can still flow (if it is forced) so technically we can still reproduce until our last remaining sperm cells die(if you can find a woman who is sick enough to screw a corpse) but we do not fulfill any other criteria necessary to be scientifically deemed *alive*.

As far as we are concerned there is no soul, no afterlife, just nothingness. And nothingness cannot be literally experienced.

But what do you think happens to your soul and mind when you die?
I think the soul (like the conscious mind) cannot exist without a body to be a part of; hence, I don't believe in ghosts. I like the re-incarnation theory that (magically) puts a soul right into an emerging new body --and this goes a long way towards offering explanation for inherent traits in people that cannot otherwise be easily explained, like how Beethoven could be a musical genius at 7 years old --but that's more speculation than belief on my part. Pragmatically, I think the soul is a conceptual understanding of some specific part of our 'being', so that, like the mind, it disperses when the body's energy does. Our body is returned to the Mother Earth who created it - dust to dust.

I like the re-incarnation theory that (magically) puts a soul right into an emerging new body --and this goes a long way towards offering explanation for inherent traits in people that cannot otherwise be easily explained, like how Beethoven could be a musical genius at 7 years old
Nope. It doesn't. While reincarnation can give you a deceased person's soul, it will not be accompanied by that person's memories or skills, only by his inherent instinctive personality. Thus, for Beethoven to be a musical genius at age seven would require the previous owner of his soul to also have been a musical genius at age seven (or at least the potential to become one with access to proper training). This doesn't help in explaining where the boy-genius soul came from in the first place.

On the other hand, you could claim that everybody retains and accumulates skills from their previous lives. But in that case, I would expect to see more super-genius babies than we have now.

Nope. It doesn't. While reincarnation can give you a deceased person's soul, it will not be accompanied by that person's memories or skills, only by his inherent instinctive personality. Thus, for Beethoven to be a musical genius at age seven would require the previous owner of his soul to also have been a musical genius at age seven (or at least the potential to become one with access to proper training). This doesn't help in explaining where the boy-genius soul came from in the first place.

On the other hand, you could claim that everybody retains and accumulates skills from their previous lives. But in that case, I would expect to see more super-genius babies than we have now.
I don't understand your reasoning in the first paragraph. Are you suggesting that the personality is a 'record' of the life that plays out during the span of a life --so that someone who inherits it plays out the same story in the same way? There's an interesting thought --too much like predestination for my liking, though.

I don't think reincarnation is possible. If reincarnation is possible, then why isn't the earth's population always exactly constant?

I don't think reincarnation is possible. If reincarnation is possible, then why isn't the earth's population always exactly constant?
Two possible responses occur to me, off-hand: one, that the populuation of souls includes those in Heaven and Hell, so more souls in bodies on Earth means less in those places. And two, that the population of souls could include life-forms other than man, so as more souls inhabit man, less do in other life-forms.

I don't understand your reasoning in the first paragraph. Are you suggesting that the personality is a 'record' of the life that plays out during the span of a life --so that someone who inherits it plays out the same story in the same way? There's an interesting thought --too much like predestination for my liking, though.
No - but the soul has an inherent "music affinity". Exactly how well you ACTUALLY learn to write music depends also on the quality of your teachers, how supportive your parents are of your career choice, etc. So not every Beethoven-incarnation need necessarily be an expert musician, but it is not unreasonable to assume that a fair number of his reincarnations would have similarly impressive results.

If you deny that a soul has any inherent affinity for certain types of skills, then what, really, is being reincarnated? You might as well claim that prey is reincarnated in the predator.

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov,
"For I Have Tasted The Fruit"

I see you get your quotes from the same place as I. :p

If you deny that a soul has any inherent affinity for certain types of skills, then what, really, is being reincarnated? You might as well claim that prey is reincarnated in the predator.
Exactly so --if skills and traits are not passed along, then reincarnation does nothing to preserve the ''self'' in terms of personality. Other concepts of the soul, though, describe the soul as the spark or 'breath' of life, and lead one to conclude that it is only our (human's) ego that insists that traits must be passed along.

Exactly so --if skills and traits are not passed along, then reincarnation does nothing to preserve the ''self'' in terms of personality. Other concepts of the soul, though, describe the soul as the spark or 'breath' of life, and lead one to conclude that it is only our (human's) ego that insists that traits must be passed along.
I recall an NPC in a game I played who knew he was about to die, and said that [paraphrase] he wouldn't really be dead, because his body would help the flowers grow. I guess I can't argue with that - but it's not what I think of as "reincarnation". Again, what is being passed along? In this case it is only the bodily chemicals.

Also, if traits are not passed along, then how does reincarnation explain Beethoven?

i think, when i die. i'll go where i want. cuddling a catgirl :fluffle:

i think, when i die. i'll go where i want. cuddling a catgirl
Is that also where the catgirl wants to be?

I recall an NPC in a game I played who knew he was about to die, and said that [paraphrase] he wouldn't really be dead, because his body would help the flowers grow. I guess I can't argue with that - but it's not what I think of as "reincarnation". Again, what is being passed along? In this case it is only the bodily chemicals.

Also, if traits are not passed along, then how does reincarnation explain Beethoven?
I've proposed three different ideas related to reincarnation so far --didn't mean to suggest they are one, unified theory. I've long since forgotten what I read about reincarnation, but I suppose what is passed along as the 'spark of life' from a dying person to a newly conceived one is transcendent of the physical plane, so to speak.

[Constant population through eincarnation of souls]

Two possible responses occur to me, off-hand: one, that the populuation of souls includes those in Heaven and Hell, so more souls in bodies on Earth means less in those places. And two, that the population of souls could include life-forms other than man, so as more souls inhabit man, less do in other life-forms.

How about:
1) Spontaneous creation of new souls to fill up the shortfall for any new corporeal forms requiring them (means that not all of us have souls reincarnated from the begining of history, surprisingly few in fact)
2) Division of souls (asexual reproduction/cloning), thus explaining how so many people think they are a reincarnation of Alexander The Great
3) Breeding of souls (sexual reproduction, essentially). What an intruiging thought... :)
4) There are just a finite number of souls but they aren't restrained by time, thus Alexander The Great can (again) be reincarnated in so many different lives (also explains various other strange Fortean stuff). The logical extension is that there is just one soul, of course, and everyone has had it, will have it, does have it.

Just some ideas. As mentioned previously, I don't really think that eternal existences are the answer to any of lifes big questions, but when it comes to effing the ineffible we can always guess... :)

[Constant population through eincarnation of souls]

Another one occurs to me, that I think I read about long ago: souls, as an incorporeal component of incarnate flesh, together form a vast 'pool' of spiritual energy on a plane apart from but bound to the physical matter. So the individual's soul would be just one portion of the pool of energy, connecting all life-forms.

But all this speculation probably isn't helpful. ;-)

It may mean something more in the context from which it came, but I read this quote as talking about human nature: that, given a lack of "proof", man will tend towards believing God exists simply because we "long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes". We all need a "Father in Heaven" or a "Mother Earth" to care for us.
Context? Well, interesting you should bring that up...
I see you get your quotes from the same place as I. :p
I'm honestly surprised it took anyone that long to notice.

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

-- Sister Miriam Godwinson,
"But for the Grace of God"

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov,
"For I Have Tasted The Fruit"

And some have found a loving and caring universe in even this world where really bad and nasty stuff happens to wonderfully good people.

The universe is not here to coddle your "ass" from your childish mistakes. It is merely here, to be dealt with by us.

The academician (which I am in spirit if not in actuality) would prefer to have his truths accessible in the book-o-knowledge, and takes great joy in adding to that book.

He sometimes fails to see that we each have our own books-o-knowlege based on the evidence of what we feel as truth.

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
Because he was bored and had nothing better to do with his time? There are many "god games" where humans get to play the roles of deities in a fantasy world, Black and White being one popular example. The act of programming such a game could be seen as creating the world. This also explains the existance of evil deities (such as Satan): what's the fun in a game if there is no challenge? One interpret the New Testament by saying that Yahweh programmed the world, then gave it to Jesus and Satan to play with.

I fully expect to be flamed for this statement.

When we atheists die we experience brain death. That means no sensations, no new experiences or visual input, just nothing. We become waste products of society that just take up space.

Absolutely nothing happens to us after we die. Apparently blood can still flow (if it is forced) so technically we can still reproduce until our last remaining sperm cells die(if you can find a woman who is sick enough to screw a corpse) but we do not fulfill any other criteria necessary to be scientifically deemed *alive*.

As far as we are concerned there is no soul, no afterlife, just nothingness. And nothingness cannot be literally experienced.

"WE"....? :)

"MY" afterlife will be filled with the world continuing. When "I" die, the world will carry on.

I won't be able to do anything in it, of course. But I will have an affect on it in what I've done during my life.

Thus, if I've had a "good" affect on the world, I shall be remembered for having done so, and will "live on" in those things that I've done good and bad, and those things that I've made and done.

What happens in your afterlife, or is it all about you....? :)

The same way everyone else feels about it, minus an afterlife.

Nawwww... I don't feel to bad about maybe dieing. It's Jesus bringing me home, but of course I don't want to go before the time is right and I have no idea when that is. And with my instincts and the joy of living I will avoid death if possible.

Of course pain would be bad, but I don't know - what's the normal way to feel about dying?

"WE"....? :)

"MY" afterlife will be filled with the world continuing. When "I" die, the world will carry on.

I won't be able to do anything in it, of course. But I will have an affect on it in what I've done during my life.

Thus, if I've had a "good" affect on the world, I shall be remembered for having done so, and will "live on" in those things that I've done good and bad, and those things that I've made and done.

What happens in your afterlife, or is it all about you....? :)

Yeah! Leave the world a better place!

And some have found a loving and caring universe in even this world where really bad and nasty stuff happens to wonderfully good people.

The universe is not here to coddle your "ass" from your childish mistakes. It is merely here, to be dealt with by us.

The academician (which I am in spririt if not in actuality) would prefer to have his truths accessible in the book-o-knowledge, and takes great joy in adding to that book.

He sometimes fails to see that we each have our own books-o-knowlege based on the evidence of what we feel as truth.

Hey, you know, the only reason Zakharov makes it in the world of Alpha Centauri is as long as he can keep his isolationism going! I like to raid his cities... when spoils of war is on. Trade... pfttt.

Quote:
[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Well, he's got this little book, you see...

And this little book tells him all the 'truth' he ever needs...

Mockery of something you study alot Grave, why do you bother with it then?

Or is this another personal attack, not you of course, all you do is debate, your far too above that, arent you Grave.

Quote:
And how does he know his book is right?

Its not my book.

Quote:
Well, one of the 'truths' in his book, is that his book is 'true'...

True it is.
Do you have any mockery for the Koran, is that just someones little book as well?

It has an awful lot of stuff you hate Grave you know like Sharia laws and unjust punishments etc, or is it only Christianity you have a big chip on your shoulder about?

Term is even more paranoid than Grave..!! :)

Grave is just not interested in authorities that he doesn't respect.

No need to get defensive. I'm sure Grave is an "equal opportunity" dissenter on religious matters..! :D

Because he was bored and had nothing better to do with his time? There are many "god games" where humans get to play the roles of deities in a fantasy world, Black and White being one popular example. The act of programming such a game could be seen as creating the world. This also explains the existance of evil deities (such as Satan): what's the fun in a game if there is no challenge? One interpret the New Testament by saying that Yahweh programmed the world, then gave it to Jesus and Satan to play with.

I fully expect to be flamed for this statement.
*FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME*

Seriously, though, how could a perfect God experience an imperfect human emotion like boredom?

And some have found a loving and caring universe in even this world where really bad and nasty stuff happens to wonderfully good people.

The universe is not here to coddle your "ass" from your childish mistakes. It is merely here, to be dealt with by us.

The academician (which I am in spririt if not in actuality) would prefer to have his truths accessible in the book-o-knowledge, and takes great joy in adding to that book.

He sometimes fails to see that we each have our own books-o-knowlege based on the evidence of what we feel as truth.
Ah, but the Academician, through educated obstinance, would argue that despite what you "feel" to be true, there will inevitably be one unarguable, undisputible truth in one concrete theory that will govern all physical aspects of existance. Therefore what you feel is ultimately irrelivant.

Seriously, though, how could a perfect God experience an imperfect human emotion like boredom?
Well, the bible is quite clear on him repeatedly experiencing anger or regret. I think boredom is comparatively mild.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
I don't understand your reasoning in the first paragraph. Are you suggesting that the personality is a 'record' of the life that plays out during the span of a life --so that someone who inherits it plays out the same story in the same way? There's an interesting thought --too much like predestination for my liking, though.

No - but the soul has an inherent "music affinity". Exactly how well you ACTUALLY learn to write music depends also on the quality of your teachers, how supportive your parents are of your career choice, etc. So not every Beethoven-incarnation need necessarily be an expert musician, but it is not unreasonable to assume that a fair number of his reincarnations would have similarly impressive results.

If you deny that a soul has any inherent affinity for certain types of skills, then what, really, is being reincarnated? You might as well claim that prey is reincarnated in the predator.

"You might as well claim that prey is reincarnated in the predator."

Now,.. I like that idea... sounds familiar...

"Hey, cousin,.. how come we don' take all the fish from the fish pond..? The village is REALLY hungry...?" said Iakeo.

"'Cause if we do, then we can't catch any more till we go get more from the mountain river, stupid-head..! And that's A BUNCH a work.!!" said Iakolo.

"They keep us alive,.. we keep them alive,.. we kinda family that way..."

Another one occurs to me, that I think I read about long ago: souls, as an incorporeal component of incarnate flesh, together form a vast 'pool' of spiritual energy on a plane apart from but bound to the physical matter. So the individual's soul would be just one portion of the pool of energy, connecting all life-forms.

But all this speculation probably isn't helpful. ;-)

There I was thinking I was all clever with all the options and that particularly clever example completely passed me by...

(Does that mean that as there are more people on the planet(/beyond?), the soul is spread thinner and thinner?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Resi Corporation
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

Because he was bored and had nothing better to do with his time? There are many "god games" where humans get to play the roles of deities in a fantasy world, Black and White being one popular example. The act of programming such a game could be seen as creating the world. This also explains the existance of evil deities (such as Satan): what's the fun in a game if there is no challenge? One interpret the New Testament by saying that Yahweh programmed the world, then gave it to Jesus and Satan to play with.

I fully expect to be flamed for this statement.

NO.. no,.. Excellent observation..! :)

The wonderful movement of the world, all the infinite dynamics, are the beautiful and amazing interactions of the "free will" of "things" with all the other "free willed" things..!

These "Jesus and Satan" characters are just a couple of representatives that people have chosen to personify one aspect of one set of dynamics. We got those too..!

My people have Iakiouw, a "fisherman who can't NOT catch too many fish but who can never get to shore to share them", and Iakiu, a "hunter who can't tell the difference between animals and people" (it's not his fault, he's just that way!).

Many stories are told by the Aunties about the adventures of these two story-people.

The stories help us think about things that the Aunties want us to think about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And some have found a loving and caring universe in even this world where really bad and nasty stuff happens to wonderfully good people.

The universe is not here to coddle your "ass" from your childish mistakes. It is merely here, to be dealt with by us.

The academician (which I am in spririt if not in actuality) would prefer to have his truths accessible in the book-o-knowledge, and takes great joy in adding to that book.

He sometimes fails to see that we each have our own books-o-knowlege based on the evidence of what we feel as truth.

Ah, but the Academician, through educated obstinance, would argue that despite what you "feel" to be true, there will inevitably be one unarguable, undisputible truth in one concrete theory that will govern all physical aspects of existance. Therefore what you feel is ultimately irrelivant.

Ah..... and the academician would be correct in that there is "inevitably" (aka "NOW") one truth that governs all physical and otherwise aspects of existence. It is "existence" itself. Nothing else COULD be as encompassing as it is, by definition.

..And your feeling of it is only as irrelevant as you make it! :)

The reason the academician searches to fill the book-o-knowledge is for the excitement of the hunt,.. the thrill of the kill,.. the pride of the trophy..!

The acclaim in the "after(his)-life"..!

These are all feelings. Fellings that we all share in our quest toward truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Resi Corporation
Seriously, though, how could a perfect God experience an imperfect human emotion like boredom?

Well, the bible is quite clear on him repeatedly experiencing anger or regret. I think boredom is comparatively mild.

:)

And what does this point toward this "god" being...?

Ah..... and the academician would be correct in that there is "inevitably" (aka "NOW") one truth that governs all physical and otherwise aspects of existence. It is "existence" itself. Nothing else COULD be as encompassing as it is, by definition.

..And your feeling of it is only as irrelevant as you make it! :)

The reason the academician searches to fill the book-o-knowledge is for the excitement of the hunt,.. the thrill of the kill,.. the pride of the trophy..!

The acclaim in the "after(his)-life"..!

These are all feelings. Fellings that we all share in our quest toward truth.
It is true that every moment is the truth, but that is not what the academician is after. The academician seeks to unravel the truth, to examine this point in time piece by piece, then reconstruct the puzzle to see if he can duplicate God's creation. The academician seeks, possibly fruitlessly, to make something as all-encompasing as existance on his own terms.

While this may be a hunt for a trophy, you must admit that it's one HELL of a trophy.

While this may be a hunt for a trophy, you must admit that it's one HELL of a trophy.
The trophy is the puzzle itself. While a fully assembled puzzle would of course be the ultimate trophy, every small section that you manage to fit together is already something to be proud about.

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.

Nice. It doesn't mean they can't use al of their "mysterious" senses, they just don't make up random stuff to explain it.
Many atheists believe in things like psychic ability and paranormal phenomenon, based on the scientific research that's been attempted on it.

I think you're confusing Atheism with Nialists. Atheists just don't believe in gods. They can still believe in some sort of afterlife, just that some GOD didn't create it. That's how they can still "believe" in Earth, even though some crazy amish guy in the sky didn't create it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Ah..... and the academician would be correct in that there is "inevitably" (aka "NOW") one truth that governs all physical and otherwise aspects of existence. It is "existence" itself. Nothing else COULD be as encompassing as it is, by definition.

..And your feeling of it is only as irrelevant as you make it!

The reason the academician searches to fill the book-o-knowledge is for the excitement of the hunt,.. the thrill of the kill,.. the pride of the trophy..!

The acclaim in the "after(his)-life"..!

These are all feelings. Fellings that we all share in our quest toward truth.


It is true that every moment is the truth, but that is not what the academician is after. The academician seeks to unravel the truth, to examine this point in time piece by piece, then reconstruct the puzzle to see if he can duplicate God's creation. The academician seeks, possibly fruitlessly, to make something as all-encompasing as existance on his own terms.

While this may be a hunt for a trophy, you must admit that it's one HELL of a trophy.

A marvelous and intense cousin he was... our Iakeu.

He wished to know of each grain of sand on the beach. His surfboard he never used for surfing. It was his flat-place for looking at sand grains.

We learned many things about our sand from him. He could tell you the season, and even when a storm was coming! He was a true marvel, our studious cousin.

He even made beautiful and useful things from the melted sand, out near the volcano's lava flow..!

He would sometimes say, "When I know enough about these sand grains, I will make an island..!"

We had a good laugh at dat one..! :)

He was really good with sandpiles, though.

Seriously, though, how could a perfect God experience an imperfect human emotion like boredom?
What is imperfect about human emotions?

=Willamena]I don't believe in Christ, not the way you probably mean in this sentence. I am not a Christian.


Sorry I thought you were.


But I do believe in the meaning behind the symbol of the Christ, and the message of compassion and forgiving that surrounds it.

Yes it is a great one.

Sorry I thought you were.

What's your take on the message of the Noah's Ark story?

What is imperfect about human emotions?
yeah, seriously...human emotions are as perfect as natural laws, since our emotions are designed and moved by the forces of our very reality. our emotions were designed and shaped by millions of years of constant development. our emotions do exactly what they are designed to so, in exactly the way they were designed to do it. they're as perfect as anything can be, as far as i can tell.

What's your take on the message of the Noah's Ark story?

I believe it word for word, hope I havent dissapointed you?

I believe it word for word, hope I havent dissapointed you?
No worry, there. I don't know, so hadn't formed any expectations.

EDIT: I also noticed you didn't answer my question, but no matter. ;-)

No worry, there. I don't know, so hadn't formed any expectations.

EDIT: I also noticed you didn't answer my question, but no matter. ;-)

What question?
I believe the story, what else did you ask?

What question?
I believe the story, what else did you ask?
Well, I didn't ask if you believed it; I asked if you got a message from it, and if so, what is the message (your "take" on it).

It is true that every moment is the truth, but that is not what the academician is after. The academician seeks to unravel the truth, to examine this point in time piece by piece, then reconstruct the puzzle to see if he can duplicate God's creation. The academician seeks, possibly fruitlessly, to make something as all-encompasing as existance on his own terms.

While this may be a hunt for a trophy, you must admit that it's one HELL of a trophy.
More importantly, it's one HELL of a hunt.

Well, I didn't ask if you believed it; I asked if you got a message from it, and if so, what is the message (your "take" on it).

Well I dont think theres some great hidden meaning in it, its just an account of Gods anger at man for his sins, and who survived the flood, and which of Noahs three sons the people of the Ancient world descended from.

Well I dont think theres some great hidden meaning in it, its just an account of Gods anger at man for his sins, and who survived the flood, and which of Noahs three sons the people of the Ancient world descended from.

{Let's see if he can be asked a question without going ballistic...}

You seriously believe that every man, woman and child alive today is descended from Noah and his sons? And that's what, 5 thousand years ago?

{Let's see if he can be asked a question without going ballistic...}

You seriously believe that every man, woman and child alive today is descended from Noah and his sons? And that's what, 5 thousand years ago?

Perhaps God crossed them with bunnies? ;)

Perhaps God crossed them with bunnies? ;)
he wouldn't need to...he just wrote a book about how evil sex is, and let human nature take its course. remember that the average life span back then was about 25 years, so you had a whole population of teen agers; all you have to do to get them to breed is tell them not to breed :P.

he wouldn't need to...he just wrote a book about how evil sex is, and let human nature take its course. remember that the average life span back then was about 25 years, so you had a whole population of teen agers; all you have to do to get them to breed is tell them not to breed :P.

Good point, I hadn't even thought of that.

At any rate, I guess God approves of incest again. Or maybe some people magically popped into excitence again, like with Adam and Eve.

Good point, I hadn't even thought of that.

At any rate, I guess God approves of incest again. Or maybe some people magically popped into excitence again, like with Adam and Eve.
yeah, that's the part i never understood:

Here's Adam and Eve, the first and only humans on the planet! See Adam and Eve have sons. Now, watch as those sons find brides from...some where...wait a minute...

Russia?

Russia?
didn't we learn anything from the Cold War? the Christian God HATES the Russians!!

he wouldn't need to...he just wrote a book about how evil sex is, and let human nature take its course.
Except that God told them "be fruitful and multiply". Sex being evil is a New Testament idea.

remember that the average life span back then was about 25 years, so you had a whole population of teen agers
Except that Noah lived 950 years. Supposedly.

didn't we learn anything from the Cold War? the Christian God HATES the Russians!!

But isn't there were you can get those mail-order brides? Besides, Russia didn't excist back then.

Except that God told them "be fruitful and multiply". Sex being evil is a New Testament idea.


Except that Noah lived 950 years. Supposedly.

Actually, sex being evil is more like an idea of St Paul, Jesus is not really specific on that point.

Except that God told them "be fruitful and multiply". Sex being evil is a New Testament idea.

no no, producing CHILDREN is good, but having sex is awful...we must have sex, unfortunately, but we shouldn't like it or ever, ever do it for anything other than producing children. sex is the necessary evil for getting babies, but itself is a horrible punishment...remember, original sin; Adam and Eve realized they should be ashamed of being nude.

Except that Noah lived 950 years. Supposedly.
i was talking about reality; people ACTUALLY lived about 25 years, on average, back then. i trust anthropological data a little bit more than the claims of a book about talking snakes and dudes who walk on water.

But isn't there were you can get those mail-order brides? Besides, Russia didn't excist back then.

Russia didn't exist? I wondered what all those builders were doing.... that explains why they needed all that rock, too...

:)

no no, producing CHILDREN is good, but having sex is awful...we must have sex, unfortunately, but we shouldn't like it or ever, ever do it for anything other than producing children. sex is the necessary evil for getting babies, but itself is a horrible punishment...remember, original sin; Adam and Eve realized they should be ashamed of being nude.

i was talking about reality; people ACTUALLY lived about 25 years, on average, back then. i trust anthropological data a little bit more than the claims of a book about talking snakes and dudes who walk on water.

Hey! I can walk on water!

I just need it to be kind of .... shallow...

or really cold!

When I die, I'll finally get some fucking sleep. lol Basically it's the same as everyone elses, without the afterlife.

i was talking about reality; people ACTUALLY lived about 25 years, on average, back then. i trust anthropological data a little bit more than the claims of a book about talking snakes and dudes who walk on water.
Of course, so do I. However, we were talking about how Noah was able to repopulate the Earth, so we were already operating under the (ridiculous) assumption that the biblical account of the flood is factually correct. I thought the "supposedly" would make this clear.

Hey! I can walk on water!

I just need it to be kind of .... shallow...

or really cold!
*gasp* HE'S THE MESSIAH!!!

Of course, so do I. However, we were talking about how Noah was able to repopulate the Earth, so we were already operating under the (ridiculous) assumption that the biblical account of the flood is factually correct. I thought the "supposedly" would make this clear.
exactly. just as it is physically impossible for Noah to have lived nearly 1000 years, it is physically impossible for Noah and his family to have repopulated the world to current numbers in the time frame theorized by the Bible.

so remind me again why people can't tell the difference between fables and fact?! why is this stuff not painfully obvious to everyone?!

*gasp* HE'S THE MESSIAH!!!

I guess my claim is as good as anyone elses....!

I can roll stones, too. And, while I didn't bring an end to the evil empire with a sword and flame.... I did once start a fire with two sticks and a bit of string... my disciples called it the "Miracle of the Burning Sticks"... I think.

And, one time, at band camp, I fed 3000 people with one fish-sandwich. Of course, we had to cut it really, really small...

so remind me again why people can't tell the difference between fables and fact?! why is this stuff not painfully obvious to everyone?!
For each fable that they consider fact, there's a fact that they consider fable. So it balances out.

Well I dont think theres some great hidden meaning in it, its just an account of Gods anger at man for his sins, and who survived the flood, and which of Noahs three sons the people of the Ancient world descended from.
Is there nothing spirtual to be gained from this historical account written as the Word of God?

I myself am an atheist. Religion has made many become insane, it has allowed dictators to control people, most of the rare good stuff that is written in the "holy" books is ignored, and it is primitive. Religion tranquilizes people's minds, it makes them more able to accept the evils of propaganda and fascism. Religion is used as a vehicle of hate. I think the absence of religion from one's daily life is great. Trust me, by the end of the 21st century, religions would be extinct after people will realize their uselessness.

Trust me, by the end of the 21st century, religions would be extinct after people will realize their uselessness.
You wish. Sadly, I do not think their evil will leave us that easily. I would like very much to be proven wrong.

The flood is a myth taken from the Babylonian myth Gilgamesh, sorry but the Gilgamesh myth originated LONG before the Abrahamic version. Your damn bible also says the Earth is flat, rests on pillars(Job 26:11), and does not move(Psalms 19:5-6 93:1 96:10 104:5). In REALITY, the Earth is spherical, does not rest on pillars (it doesn't need to), and moves around the Sun. How can the Bible be the word of God if you take this into account? The Bible is CRAZY and says many things contrary to actual scientific knowledge.

The flood is a myth taken from the Babylonian myth Gilgamesh, sorry but the Gilgamesh myth originated LONG before the Abrahamic version. Your damn bible also says the Earth is flat, rests on pillars(Job 26:11), and does not move(Psalms 19:5-6 93:1 96:10 104:5). In REALITY, the Earth is spherical, does not rest on pillars (it doesn't need to), and moves around the Sun. How can the Bible be the word of God if you take this into account? The Bible is CRAZY and says many things contrary to actual scientific knowledge.
What if they are equally as old, and the Gilgamesh one was simply put down in writing earlier?

As I heard in a computer game.

"Here lies Kate, an athiest, all dressed up and no place to go."

Sums my view up pretty compleatly.

And, one time, at band camp, I fed 3000 people with one fish-sandwich. Of course, we had to cut it really, really small...

The fact it was 2 weeks old might of also helped.

The flood is a myth taken from the Babylonian myth Gilgamesh, sorry but the Gilgamesh myth originated LONG before the Abrahamic version. Your damn bible also says the Earth is flat, rests on pillars(Job 26:11), and does not move(Psalms 19:5-6 93:1 96:10 104:5). In REALITY, the Earth is spherical, does not rest on pillars (it doesn't need to), and moves around the Sun. How can the Bible be the word of God if you take this into account? The Bible is CRAZY and says many things contrary to actual scientific knowledge.
Interesting note about the pillars: Atlas, the Greek Titan, originally started out as a pillar (tree, as in "of life") that held the sky apart from the earth. Over time the story evolved into the more famliar fellow holding the earth on his shoulders (originally, it was heaven he held up).

I always figured the pillars necessarily separate the masculine heaven from the feminine water/earth to still creation. The creative deed has been done, so they have to be held apart or they'd go at it forever. ;-)

At least it's less painful than the Etruscan solution, which was to have baby Chronos cut off his father Sky's genitals.

exactly. just as it is physically impossible for Noah to have lived nearly 1000 years, it is physically impossible for Noah and his family to have repopulated the world to current numbers in the time frame theorized by the Bible.

so remind me again why people can't tell the difference between fables and fact?! why is this stuff not painfully obvious to everyone?!
I mean if you think about it there are lessons to be learned. If I wanted to be a really big liberal enviormentalist. GLOBAL WARMING. Predicts flood. Lets get the big boats out.

or you could say if you are in a world filled with evil prepare for disaster and you wil survive.

or we all come from the same person we are all equal

or God always wants to protect the world

or even from the worst situations you can suceed

Thats the problem. So many interpretations, the undoing of religon.

Hey! I can walk on water!

I just need it to be kind of .... shallow...

or really cold!

Grave once again showing how much he respects other peoples religons, what do you get out of it, honestly how old are you?
Is it arrested adolescence?

At least it's less painful than the Etruscan solution, which was to have baby Chronos cut off his father Sky's genitals.

We all have to make sacrifices.

I guess my claim is as good as anyone elses....!

I can roll stones, too. And, while I didn't bring an end to the evil empire with a sword and flame.... I did once start a fire with two sticks and a bit of string... my disciples called it the "Miracle of the Burning Sticks"... I think.

And, one time, at band camp, I fed 3000 people with one fish-sandwich. Of course, we had to cut it really, really small...

And here he goes off again, if its so unbelievable why do you put so much effort into mocking it?

Is there nothing spirtual to be gained from this historical account written as the Word of God?

Not really, have clean thoughts and a pure heart I guess and God will not wipe you out, for me its an account of Gods wrath and his remorse.

As for gaining something, I guess humility.

Christianity's like communism - they're both good in theory...:p

Christianity's like communism - they're both good in theory...:p

Christianity is also good in practice, communism is not.

Not really, have clean thoughts and a pure heart I guess and God will not wipe you out, for me its an account of Gods wrath and his remorse.

As for gaining something, I guess humility.
Alright; now we're peeking at a message in the tale. Well done.

Christianity is also good in practice, communism is not.

And this is so because you say it is?

That's an opinion, not a statement of facts.

Opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one, and they all stink! :p

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.

Now now, quit being an asshole. Atheism is for people who don't believe bullshit like god.