Athiests Obviously Believe in SOMETHING!

I don't hate homosexuals Jarod; I hate homosexuality. And yes, the ones that I have known I have treated them with respect. :good4u:

Why? Did someone make you do it? Otherwise, why do you care what other grown adult do in private? I have never understood this attitude. I was forced to eat liver when I was young and to this day I hate liver, but I was never forced to have a homosexual experience by anyone.
 
God: Hey Jews.
Jews: Hey.
God: So listen guys, I'm thinking we go in a different direction with this whole religion.
Jews: What?
God: You know, do a non-gritty reboot. Same God taste, new God packaging. That sort of thing.
Jews: We don't follow.
God: Okay, work with me here guys. Remember the whole ‘angry God' thing?
Jews: Vividly.
God: Where I killed a whole bunch of you and-
Jews: Yeah.
God: And forty years in the-
Jews: We remember that.
God: Not to mention Robo-Hitler. Yikes.
Jews: Wait, what?
God: Whoops, forget I said that. "Spoiler Alert", am I right?
God: Anyway, we're going to re-work this whole “God- thing. For example, kid-friendly is big these days in religion.
Jews: So, like...?
God: For example, I'm super chill now, for some reason. Plus there's a heaven. Oh, and this is Jesus. He's my son, and he's God too, or something. It's complicated, ok?
Jesus: Yo.
Jews: ...
God: Anyway, we're going to re-work this whole “God- thing. For example, kid-friendly is big these days in religion.
Jews: So, like...?
God: For example, I'm super chill now, for some reason. Plus there's a heaven. Oh, and this is Jesus. He's my son, and he's God too, or something. It's complicated, ok?
Jesus: Yo.
Jews: I think we'll stick with the old one here.
God:Look, I love the brand loyalty Jews, I really do. But this whole “God- thing isn't playing to the right demographics. Jesus is a hip, young God, you know, for the whole “A.D.- generations.
Jesus: Surfs up, dudes!
God: Ha, that Jesus. What a character, right? This is going to play huge in Rome…
Jews: This…goes against everything you've ever told us.
God: No it doesn't, so just shut up. Also, Jesus, you're going to die.
Jesus: What? I thought I was your son! Or God. Or both!
God: Look, this is just complicated, okay Jesus? Besides, you totally return when you fight the Devil.
Jews: Who?
God: Right, he's another new character. He's like an evil God. Plot twist, right? We're arch enemies.
Jesus: Why would you make your own arch-enemy? That's really stupid.
God: Shut up, Jesus. Andwhat would you know? You're made of bread and wine.
Jesus: What? Why?
God: Sponsorships, alright? New testaments aren't cheap.
Jews: I'm sorry, this is just way too different. Is this your fan-fiction or something?
God: Of course not. This is the logical progression of Judaism which I planned all along. Like when I made all those references to a lamb.
Jews: You made, like, five.
God: Well, they were all about Jesus. Foreshadowing. Um, I guess. So there.
Jews: Couldn't you have been clearer then?
God: I work in mysterious ways, okay? Look, just go with it guys. I worked really hard on this. And come on, you totally owe me for the whole 'creation' thing anyway.
(pause)
Most Jews: Well, I guess we could.
God: Awesome! 'Most Jews', aka 'New Christians'-
New Christians: We're what now?
God: You won't regret this guys, I have the whole thing planned perfectly
Holy Ghost: Oooooooooh!
God: ...
New Christians: ...
God: You're going to love it.
 
Last edited:
I believe I have helped to convert people to some of my positions. It's still up to them and my contribution may be in just shaking the firmness of their opinion on a subject and then they do the rest themselves.

I can list several people whose views I have seen change after arguing with them. A few are on these boards.

Well it's nice to know you have a belief in something! However, in matters of personal faith in spirituality, you have not shaped anyone's opinion. Those predisposed to disbelieve, are going to do so regardless of your arguments, and those who are predisposed to have faith, are not. It's as simple as that. You can delude yourself into thinking something else, which it appears you have done, but you are sadly mistaken.

Also, many people act as lurkers in debate forums who are unsure of what to think and read to find answers.

I also reject this, I don't think it is true at all. I think most people already know what they think, and "lurk" out of curiosity as to what others may think. I doubt seriously that anyone is coming here to find profound wisdom on the meaning of life... and if they are... whew!

Your views on religion have changed. Not saying I played any part in that, but I would guess your debates on the subject here have. But you are the kind that needs to think that it's JUST your idea and so you will probably claim they have not or if they did it had nothing to do with any discussions you have had here.

My views have changed on religion, but it had nothing to do with what is posted here. I don't think I am the only one who has the belief I have, I am sure there are plenty of others, because what I "believe" is real, I feel it, I sense it, I know it to be real. As real as you know your own mother to be. Now, we can have some long-winded philosophical debate about what exactly it is that I feel and know, what attributes it may or may not have, and what role it plays in my life or the life of others who can comprehend it, but to argue that it's not real and doesn't exist, is pointless to me.

My views on many subjects, including religion, have changed through debate and reading. I would be ashamed to claim they have not, as that would indicate I have stopped growing as a person and I hope that never happens. I don't know everything, but I am going to keep trying.

That's great! I feel essentially the same way about it. I don't know and understand all there is to know, about the physical or metaphysical world.

As far as religion is concerned, I am done with that part of the journey. It is nonsense. And without religion describing the nature of God there is no reason to believe in a being with no traits, charactersitics or attributes. I know where you claim to be at, but it is odd to me that you been stuck there so long. I would not bother coming into this thread except in the hopes of explaining your errors.

This is where we tend to differ. I value religious belief, in that, it enables mankind (sometimes) to connect with the spiritual realm, to better understand and comprehend God. I find Christian teachings to be very beneficial guidelines for life, upholding the positive and good in mankind, for the most part. I can admit that some Christians misconstrue their religious teachings, just as other religions have the same problem, and religious/spiritual belief is not always the "perfect solution" to all problems and issues man faces. But the significant point in all of this is, mankind's profound and distinct connection to the spiritual realm. Regardless of any counter-argument, I still believe this is fundamentally what makes us such a different and unique species from all the rest. I can't explain why, but I don't need to explain why to believe it.

You could also consider the reasons you have been given. Religion has been used to limit rights and to stop people from searching for answers. It has done quite a bit of damage and so the articles of faith are sometimes challenged for those reasons.

I understand, but again, I am not here advocating religious teachings, I have readily admitted many religious teachings are flawed, and religion can be the source of pure evil, as we saw on 9/11, or with the beheading of Nick Berg, the bombing of abortion clinics, the Christian Crusades, etc. This isn't about "religion" but rather "spirituality!" Atheists claim to not believe in spirituality, there is no such thing as God.

Atheism does not lead to nihilism. That's just your absurd straw man. I am certainly not a nihilist. I have very strong values, most of them rather traditional. I just reject the idiotic ones that are only supported with, "cause God said so."

I never said it "leads to" Nihilism, it IS Nihilism! When you remove any possibility of afterlife, any consideration of supreme deities, any concept of purpose, then what is left? Values are all good and well, but if we are just here, and there is no purpose in life, and we will just live and die and become worm food, how can you define a fundamental basis for your values? Don't values merely become your subjective reasoning, and nothing more? And if that is the case, can't you alter your values to fit your needs as you please?

I am more fulfilled as an atheist than I ever could have been as a believer. Again, I don't know where you get your nonsense. I have seen some atheists struggle with the isolation and discrimination, but that is usually a transitional problem. Once you find a consistent morality that need not be based on believing things that do not make sense to you, it is actually quite liberating.

Because you have convinced yourself that you are fulfilled. Any human not in connection with their spiritual faith is lost, in a wilderness of frustration, searching for something that is missing. We often do a remarkable job of combating that perception, when we are in denial.

It is absurd to call repeatable experiences and observations of the results or acceptance of cause and effect, matters of faith. It poses no dilemma. Maybe for you it does. Not me, I doubt it does for water or many of the other atheists.

Whether something is observable and repeatable, it still requires faith. The dilemma is, rejecting "faith" is not an option. Logic itself, depends on a level of faith.
 
So Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes had no logic that they used when discerning philosophy? That's your position? Socrates was an illogical thinker too?

Just cuz YOU say it, just doesn't make it so Mott. I quoted a simplistic example of the theory that is a common tool in the application of philosophical ideas.
I didn't say that or even infer it. I said that the authors argument falls apart because, using classical philosophy, if an argument is based upon a false or incorrect premise, and proposition A is clearly wrong as his been demonstrated, then the conclusion built upon that premise would also be wrong and thus the logic used to draw that conclusion would be flawed.

By the way, though Aristotle was indeed the greatest of classical philosophers and possibly even the greatest philosopher in western history he was famous for some of his flawed logic because he reasoned arguments that were completely wrong as they were built upon a false premise and drew the wrong conclusion, that is, his logic was flawed. That does not take away in the least that it was Aristotle who formulated this systematic critical empiricism which has so influenced western society.

For example, Aristotle's contribution to biology is profound. If Darwin is the modern father of biology then Aristotle is its grandfather as he was the first human to develop a system of biological classification, that is, he invented the science of phylogeny. A great achievement. Biology, as a science, subsequently did not advance much from his time until Harvey discovered the true function of the human heart during the Renaissance and it did not become a true science, as we now know science, until Darwin postulated his theory of biological evolution by the means of natural selection.

Speaking of the heart, that is the prefect example of where Aristotle used systematic critical empiricism to draw a wrong conclusion, based on a false premise and using flawed logic. Aristotle observed that emotional stress caused wild fluctuations in heart rates. A fact that's easily observable. Based on this observation Aristotle drew the conclusion that the heart was the center of thought and reasoning in the human body and not the brain. Thus armed with a false premise Aristotle drew an incorrect conclusion by using flawed logic. There are quite a few examples of Aristotle making very big mistakes in this manner but does this discredit Aristotle's philosophy of systematic critical empiricism? Of course it doesn't. It's probably the greatest system of thought formulated by a single man and was a staggering intellectual achievement.

It is, however, an excellent example of how flawed logic can lead to the wrong conclusion as was done by the author you posted.
 
It is, however, an excellent example of how flawed logic can lead to the wrong conclusion as was done by the author you posted.

Kind of like using the flawed logic that mankind adopted spirituality as a means to explain the unexplained? (I mean.... even though, this attribute is present in the species for as long as the species has existed, and was the fundamental basis for all civilization and society as we know it..... it just so happened that man was compelled to invent this to explain the unexplained.)
 
ID let me put this more simply using the classical philosophy the author used of;

Premise A and Observation B = Conclusion C (A+B=C) with the condition that for conclusion C to be true that both Premise A and Observation B must also be true. If either Premise A or Observation B are False then Conclusion C would also be false.

Your author argues that;

Premise A - All things that exist can be defined in terms of our 5 senses.

Obervation B - The human mind exist.

Conclusion C - The human mind is defined in terms of it's 5 senses.

Observation B is correct. There's no argument about the existence of the human mind (Well....we'll make an exception for Dixie).

But Premise A is wrong. We know there are many phenomena that are outside the ability of our senses to define. They are inferred by our mind and cannot be seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled. This truth should be obvious to anyone who has ever taken a 3rd grade science class.

Therefore if Premise A is wrong then Conclusion C must also be wrong even if we do know observation B to be true. Our mind cannot be defined exclusively by its 5 senses. It is very capable of making rational inferences that are beyond our 5 senses ability to define and the examples of that are to numerous to list.
 
Last edited:
Kind of like using the flawed logic that mankind adopted spirituality as a means to explain the unexplained? (I mean.... even though, this attribute is present in the species for as long as the species has existed, and was the fundamental basis for all civilization and society as we know it..... it just so happened that man was compelled to invent this to explain the unexplained.)
That very well cold be flawed logic though probably not for the reasons you are stating. I mean how do you know this? What evidence do you have that spirituality is an innate characteristic of our species since its beginning? That would be like me claiming I know what the ultimate origins of our species are. I couldn't possibly know that. I wasn't there when we originated and neither were you.
 
Want a free ride? What are you talking about? You didn't even answer my question.

So is what your saying to me is that if someone doesn't believe in God and that due to this action (or lack there of) God is going to show his love to them by having them burn in unspeakable agony forever and ever till the end of time? Just because that someone doesn't believe in him?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwx2ce_AyOE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwx2ce_AyOE[/ame]
 
Well it's nice to know you have a belief in something! However, in matters of personal faith in spirituality, you have not shaped anyone's opinion. Those predisposed to disbelieve, are going to do so regardless of your arguments, and those who are predisposed to have faith, are not. It's as simple as that. You can delude yourself into thinking something else, which it appears you have done, but you are sadly mistaken.

It's good to know you believe something too. Even though you have no proof for your assertion yet present it as undeniable fact. I know for a fact that people can be swayed by debate.


I also reject this, I don't think it is true at all. I think most people already know what they think, and "lurk" out of curiosity as to what others may think. I doubt seriously that anyone is coming here to find profound wisdom on the meaning of life... and if they are... whew!

Again, I know for a fact that it does happen. This board is mainly about politics, though.

My views have changed on religion, but it had nothing to do with what is posted here. I don't think I am the only one who has the belief I have, I am sure there are plenty of others, because what I "believe" is real, I feel it, I sense it, I know it to be real. As real as you know your own mother to be. Now, we can have some long-winded philosophical debate about what exactly it is that I feel and know, what attributes it may or may not have, and what role it plays in my life or the life of others who can comprehend it, but to argue that it's not real and doesn't exist, is pointless to me.

As I predicted. Now tell us what is the shape and form of this God? What are it's traits and attributes?

That's great! I feel essentially the same way about it. I don't know and understand all there is to know, about the physical or metaphysical world.

:palm:
You just said your views are not shaped by such things and denied the possibility of it.

This is where we tend to differ. I value religious belief, in that, it enables mankind (sometimes) to connect with the spiritual realm, to better understand and comprehend God. I find Christian teachings to be very beneficial guidelines for life, upholding the positive and good in mankind, for the most part. I can admit that some Christians misconstrue their religious teachings, just as other religions have the same problem, and religious/spiritual belief is not always the "perfect solution" to all problems and issues man faces. But the significant point in all of this is, mankind's profound and distinct connection to the spiritual realm. Regardless of any counter-argument, I still believe this is fundamentally what makes us such a different and unique species from all the rest. I can't explain why, but I don't need to explain why to believe it.

So you are a Christian that lies and claims to be some sort of deist. I figured, which is why I referenced only what you claim.


I understand, but again, I am not here advocating religious teachings, I have readily admitted many religious teachings are flawed, and religion can be the source of pure evil, as we saw on 9/11, or with the beheading of Nick Berg, the bombing of abortion clinics, the Christian Crusades, etc. This isn't about "religion" but rather "spirituality!" Atheists claim to not believe in spirituality, there is no such thing as God.

You don't get it because you are not very bright and your intellectual dishonesty keeps you from actually answering your question as to why some argue against God. Without God the dogmatic argument for many religious teachings vanish. You can't just say, "because God said so." Without religion, what is this thing called God and why should one believe in it?


I never said it "leads to" Nihilism, it IS Nihilism! When you remove any possibility of afterlife, any consideration of supreme deities, any concept of purpose, then what is left? Values are all good and well, but if we are just here, and there is no purpose in life, and we will just live and die and become worm food, how can you define a fundamental basis for your values? Don't values merely become your subjective reasoning, and nothing more? And if that is the case, can't you alter your values to fit your needs as you please?

Then your assertion is more stupid than I originally imagined. Atheism is not nihilism. It says nothing about moral values any more than theism does. That does not mean the atheist can not be moral.

Afterlife? You don't believe in religion or so you pretend. What's this afterlife nonsense. What support do you have for that?

Who said the atheist has no purpose? That's your problem. You think there is no reason for morality or anything else without God. You admit to being dimwitted on this matter, but there is no reason to assume all atheists are.

There are plenty of ethical that are not nearly as subjective as your moral relativism, but I really don't understand why you think you need God or religion for that.

Because you have convinced yourself that you are fulfilled. Any human not in connection with their spiritual faith is lost, in a wilderness of frustration, searching for something that is missing. We often do a remarkable job of combating that perception, when we are in denial
.

lol. Sure, you are a better judge of what I think or feel than I. Did you and God discuss it? I hope you were not poondering me while in the shower.

Whether something is observable and repeatable, it still requires faith. The dilemma is, rejecting "faith" is not an option. Logic itself, depends on a level of faith.

It does not. Faith, in this context, is belief without any logical proof or physical evidence. The things you describe do not fit the definition.
 
Last edited:
Dixie, in normal human experience, faith comes with evidence. When I was a child I had faith that my parents would feed me and wouldn't let me die because they hadn't before hand. But religious nuts have turned faith without evidence into some noble concept, when in reality it should be considered the height of foolishness.

That is the entire point of faith. If you can prove the existence of God, there is no need for faith.
 
It's good to know you believe something too. Even though you have no proof for your assertion yet present it as undeniable fact. I know for a fact that people can be swayed by debate. ...Again, I know for a fact that it does happen. This board is mainly about politics, though.

Uhm, no... you don't "know for a fact" any such thing! You BELIEVE that to be the case, you may even have the support for your belief through testament from another, but you don't "KNOW" that they aren't just lying to you in order to make you believe something. You are accepting (ON FAITH) the sentiment expressed by another, you do not know if that is a "fact" or not.

As I predicted. Now tell us what is the shape and form of this God? What are it's traits and attributes?

Tell us the shape and form of your thoughts, what attributes do they have?

:palm:
You just said your views are not shaped by such things and denied the possibility of it.

No, I never stated that I knew and understood everything about the physical and metaphysical world. Sorry if you thought I said that, it seems to be so absurd and unthinkable, as to not warrant repeated clarification, but apparently you misconstrued something else I said, and thought I meant something so laughably ridiculous.

So you are a Christian that lies and claims to be some sort of deist. I figured, which is why I referenced only what you claim.

Uhmm, nooo... I didn't say I was a Christian, I have repeatedly said I am NOT a Christian. I think I may know what your problem is, you have a severe reading comprehension issue going on, and I can't really help you with that. If you wish to read in your own meanings to whatever I post, you're not ever going to grasp what I am talking about.

You don't get it because you are not very bright and your intellectual dishonesty keeps you from actually answering your question as to why some argue against God. Without God the dogmatic argument for many religious teachings vanish. You can't just say, "because God said so." Without religion, what is this thing called God and why should one believe in it?

Oh, so here we are again with the personal insults? We're back to insulting my intelligence again, because you can't manage to make your point or refute mine. This is the behavior of a 7-year-old, and I suspect you are considerably older.

Then your assertion is more stupid than I originally imagined. Atheism is not nihilism. It says nothing about moral values any more than theism does. That does not mean the atheist can not be moral.

Nihilism argues that life is without objective or intrinsic value, and morals are subjective. Atheists, by definition, believe in no deity or supreme entity, which would be the basis for any objective or intrinsic value of life, and also provides a base for morality. So, yes... Atheists are Nihilists. It's not a "stupid" evaluation, it is a "logical" one.

Afterlife? You don't believe in religion or so you pretend. What's this afterlife nonsense. What support do you have for that?

I didn't say I believed in afterlife, I said that Atheists don't believe in afterlife, neither do Nihilists. Spirituality is related to religious belief because all religion is spiritual, but not all spiritual belief is religious belief. I am a spiritualist, not a believer of religion.

Who said the atheist has no purpose? That's your problem. You think there is no reason for morality or anything else without God. You admit to being dimwitted on this matter, but there is no reason to assume all atheists are.

If there is no God, there is no purpose! You can proclaim morality all you like, if you have no fundamental and foundational basis for it, what does it mean? Simply put, it means your morals are subjectively dictated by what YOU decide, dependent on what YOU want, or think you want. There is no other basis for them, without God.

There are plenty of ethical that are not nearly as subjective as your moral relativism, but I really don't understand why you think you need God or religion for that.

Again, I don't know about religion, I am not making an argument for religion. Morality is fundamentally rooted in our spiritual beliefs, that is the source from which they come, in spite of the stupidity AssClown posts on the subject.

lol. Sure, you are a better judge of what I think or feel than I. Did you and God discuss it? I hope you were not poondering me while in the shower.

Just calling them like I see them.

It does not. Faith, in this context, is belief without any logical proof or physical evidence. The things you describe do not fit the definition.

They most certainly DO fit the definition. You have no logical proof that gravity will work the same way tomorrow as it works today. You have faith that it will, because that was how it worked yesterday, and the day before, and for as far as we can tell, always.
 
Uhm, no... you don't "know for a fact" any such thing! You BELIEVE that to be the case, you may even have the support for your belief through testament from another, but you don't "KNOW" that they aren't just lying to you in order to make you believe something. You are accepting (ON FAITH) the sentiment expressed by another, you do not know if that is a "fact" or not.

I know for a fact that people's views can change through debate. Frankly, I think it is absurd to even deny that it is impossible, but that's what you do.

Tell us the shape and form of your thoughts, what attributes do they have?

You are just evading.

My thoughts are shaped like this. Don't see it... come a little closer and I might show you the shape on your nose. They are also a form of energy which can be measured.

Now answer my question. What is the shape and form of your god?

No, I never stated that I knew and understood everything about the physical and metaphysical world. Sorry if you thought I said that, it seems to be so absurd and unthinkable, as to not warrant repeated clarification, but apparently you misconstrued something else I said, and thought I meant something so laughably ridiculous.

You said your views cannot be changed through debate and then agreed when I said my views have changed through debate and reading and that I would be ashamed if they had not. Nevermind, Ditzy...


Uhmm, nooo... I didn't say I was a Christian, I have repeatedly said I am NOT a Christian. I think I may know what your problem is, you have a severe reading comprehension issue going on, and I can't really help you with that. If you wish to read in your own meanings to whatever I post, you're not ever going to grasp what I am talking about.

Oh, so here we are again with the personal insults? We're back to insulting my intelligence again, because you can't manage to make your point or refute mine. This is the behavior of a 7-year-old, and I suspect you are considerably older.

LOL, and you ignore the point. All you are doing in this thread is telling atheists what they believe even when they tell you otherwise. YOU ARE intellectually dishonest. You are afraid to accept what people are telling you they think and instead demand they believe something else, because it allows you to dehumanize them. It's a typical debate tactic for you, but what is frightening is you seem to actually believe your own nonsense.

Nihilism argues that life is without objective or intrinsic value, and morals are subjective. Atheists, by definition, believe in no deity or supreme entity, which would be the basis for any objective or intrinsic value of life, and also provides a base for morality. So, yes... Atheists are Nihilists. It's not a "stupid" evaluation, it is a "logical" one.

Atheists do not, by definition, believe that there is no basis for objective or intrinsic value. Because you are small minded and cannot imagine any reason for those outside of God you don't undesrtand how they might.

But, without religion how does God give you any insight into objective or intrinsic value?

Belief in a God does not necessitate any moral code. There are many different religions believing in God or gods with varying moral codes. One could believe in a God that wants us to go forth to kill, rape and pillage. One could believe in God that does not give a shit what we do (which is what you seem to argue at times, but your supposed views are incoherent).

This was the point of my question which you evade. Without religion (the moral code) there is no point in believing in God. We do not need God for a moral code, but without him there is no religion. God is only neccessary for an irrational moral code that one can't accept through reason.

I didn't say I believed in afterlife, I said that Atheists don't believe in afterlife, neither do Nihilists. Spirituality is related to religious belief because all religion is spiritual, but not all spiritual belief is religious belief. I am a spiritualist, not a believer of religion.

You said without the afterlife (relligion), among other things, there is no basis for values and no purpose in life. That indicates you believe in the afterlife or you are saying you have no basis for values or purpose in life.

What you are, is full of shit.

If there is no God, there is no purpose! You can proclaim morality all you like, if you have no fundamental and foundational basis for it, what does it mean? Simply put, it means your morals are subjectively dictated by what YOU decide, dependent on what YOU want, or think you want. There is no other basis for them, without God.

Nonsense. Morality can be determined by human nature and the nature of reality, with use of knowledge, reason and logic.

You are the one who argues that morality is determined subjectively, by the majority.

Again, I don't know about religion, I am not making an argument for religion. Morality is fundamentally rooted in our spiritual beliefs, that is the source from which they come, in spite of the stupidity AssClown posts on the subject.

Then what is the basis for your morality? Your shower conversations?

Just calling them like I see them.

You don't see them. You refuse to see them. Hell, above you claimed that I can't describe them or see them.

They most certainly DO fit the definition. You have no logical proof that gravity will work the same way tomorrow as it works today. You have faith that it will, because that was how it worked yesterday, and the day before, and for as far as we can tell, always.

That is logical proof as well as physical evidence. You don't have anything like that for God.
 
I know for a fact that people's views can change through debate. Frankly, I think it is absurd to even deny that it is impossible, but that's what you do.....You said your views cannot be changed through debate and then agreed when I said my views have changed through debate and reading and that I would be ashamed if they had not. Nevermind, Ditzy...

Oh, I do agree that views can be changed through debate, but human propensity to connect with their spirituality can't. We are born with that, and it doesn't change. You may have swayed someone's opinion who wanted to live in denial with you, I'll grant you that, but you didn't fundamentally change a person's connection to spirituality, you can't.

You are just evading.

My thoughts are shaped like this. Don't see it... come a little closer and I might show you the shape on your nose. They are also a form of energy which can be measured.

Now answer my question. What is the shape and form of your god?

It's not an evasion. I will answer your question when you answer mine! What is the shape and form of your thoughts? Are you admitting your thoughts are not real and don't exist? That seems to be what you are saying here!

LOL, and you ignore the point. All you are doing in this thread is telling atheists what they believe even when they tell you otherwise. YOU ARE intellectually dishonest. You are afraid to accept what people are telling you they think and instead demand they believe something else, because it allows you to dehumanize them. It's a typical debate tactic for you, but what is frightening is you seem to actually believe your own nonsense.

I am merely telling you what you do believe, which is not what you claim to believe. I am demonstrating your classical symptoms of denial, which I painstakingly pointed out earlier, and no one could refute. In fact, you have abandoned trying to refute my points, and adopted a strategy of diminishing my credibility and attacking my integrity. Nothing I have said is dehumanizing, that is your tactic here.

Atheists do not, by definition, believe that there is no basis for objective or intrinsic value. Because you are small minded and cannot imagine any reason for those outside of God you don't undesrtand how they might.

Well I have given you ample time to explain what basis you can establish objectives and intrinsic value for life, without any spiritual beliefs, and you have not done so. I am open-minded, I will listen to what you have to say if it's worthwhile, but what you will present is some lame attempt to mask the truth. The fact of the matter is, without a spiritual basis, there is no fundamental objective to life, or intrinsic value. We are what we are, and all we will ever be, and it doesn't really matter if we are moral or immoral, because there is no consequence for our immorality. Therefore, morality becomes self-defined and irrelevant. A pointless charade to console our ego, and nothing more.

But, without religion how does God give you any insight into objective or intrinsic value?

You don't have to be connected to religion to know and understand God. The best way I can describe it to you is, your conscience. You instinctively understand right from wrong, you know when you are doing something that is wrong, but what makes your conscience work? Again, like your thoughts, we can't see, taste, smell, or touch your conscience, you have no physical proof it exists, but you know it does.

Belief in a God does not necessitate any moral code. There are many different religions believing in God or gods with varying moral codes. One could believe in a God that wants us to go forth to kill, rape and pillage. One could believe in God that does not give a shit what we do (which is what you seem to argue at times, but your supposed views are incoherent).

Most beliefs in God or spirit are surrounded by moral codes which will satisfy the God or spirit. Indeed, as I admitted earlier, religious believers can most certainly pervert their religious teachings and cause great evil on mankind, I even gave some examples. It's frustrating that I spend all this time typing out my responses, and you don't seem to bother reading through them. Or you read them, but grossly misinterpret the message.

This was the point of my question which you evade. Without religion (the moral code) there is no point in believing in God. We do not need God for a moral code, but without him there is no religion. God is only neccessary for an irrational moral code that one can't accept through reason.

Some religions don't believe in a single God entity, the Buddhists, for instance. "Reason" is no basis for moral code. It is inherently flawed because it is determined by man. You can "reason" that it's okay to murder unborn babies for the sake of vanity and convenience and the "choice" of a woman, so "reason" is an inadequate foundation for morality.

You said without the afterlife (relligion), among other things, there is no basis for values and no purpose in life. That indicates you believe in the afterlife or you are saying you have no basis for values or purpose in life.

Not what I said, you need to read it again. I am pointing out that Atheists do not believe in spirituality, deities, afterlife, etc. Nothing in that indicates I believe or don't believe in an afterlife, that is just a statement of definitive fact, it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Without ANY relevant belief in spirituality OR without ANY beliefs in religious teaching OR without any belief in afterlife OR without any belief in consequences for immorality, there is no foundational basis for fundamental moral beliefs. I personally know and understand spirituality, and therefore, I have a basis and foundation for my morals. I realize that bad moral behavior, things which contradict my conscience, result in negative karma, negative energies, and diminished fulfillment for me personally. My spiritual belief is the foundational basis for that, without it, there would not be a foundational basis.... have I broken this down easy enough for you to chew?

Nonsense. Morality can be determined by human nature and the nature of reality, with use of knowledge, reason and logic.

No, it simply can't. It fails without a foundational basis.

You are the one who argues that morality is determined subjectively, by the majority.

Uhm... nooo... I never said that. I did argue that we are a society made up of diverse opinions of what is morally right and wrong, and as such, our society and civilization should function and operate on the basis of what the vast majority wishes to establish as the 'rules' by which we live. This doesn't mean my personal viewpoint of morality is relative, it may completely contradict what the rest of society advocates.

Then what is the basis for your morality? Your shower conversations?

I already explained this above, but again... I believe in a supreme power, energy or force which encompasses our universe... I don't just believe it, I am acutely aware of it everyday in my everyday life. Through my experience in life, I have determined that my behavior (morality) has a direct effect on this energy flow and this effects my life, the things I do or want to do, the decisions I make, the choices and options I have. If I behave counter-intuitively to what my conscience guides me to do, bad shit almost always results. Subsequently, when I conform to my conscience and do what I know to be the right thing (morally), I receive what religious people might consider a "blessing" for that. My life goes well, things go my way, good shit happens as a result. Maybe I haven't explained it to where you can understand it, and perhaps you have to make that same connection to God that I have made, but that's about the best I can do in answering your question.

That is logical proof as well as physical evidence. You don't have anything like that for God.

Sorry Stringster, you have presented ZERO logical proof that gravity will work tomorrow. You have no physical evidence to establish proof. What you do have, is the same thing others have with their belief in God, you have FAITH. You believe that gravity will work tomorrow as it worked today, and you base it on the fact that gravity has always worked a certain way. Spirituality has always worked a certain way in the human species as well.
 
LOL, thanks for the words of encouragement AssClown, I'll treasure them always!:good4u:

Seriously though, dixie, making some big distinction between believing and knowing is assbrain retarded. Starting a thread about atheists and then using people discussing atheism as proof of something is retarded as well.


This thread = massive dixie fail.
 
Why? Did someone make you do it? Otherwise, why do you care what other grown adult do in private? I have never understood this attitude. I was forced to eat liver when I was young and to this day I hate liver, but I was never forced to have a homosexual experience by anyone.
Read the Bible, Cougar: its a heinous sin. And the ones I've known were not happy, but sad, unfortunate people, rebellious young woman, or nearly universal for the males: perverts. I don't care what consenting adults do in private, but don't call it normal moral natural and healthy, because it ain't.
 
Am I the only one who remembers when Dixie got financial advice from God in the shower.....?
 
Am I the only one who remembers when Dixie got financial advice from God in the shower.....?
It was probably better then the advise I got from my Stock Broker. (which brings up an interesting point....doesnt' it bother you that the person who manages your investment money is called a "Broker"?)
 
Back
Top