I harbor a bitter, seething, infinite hatred towards organized religion. This shit needs to stop.

If you're a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or whatever: you are responsible for all the shit committed in the name of your religion. Simple as that.

Religions contain a spectrum of beliefs.
As a Christian, you may not agree with Fred Phelps, but by believing in Christian doctrine you are indirectly supporting his ignorance and hatred.
As a Muslim, personally, you may hold fairly secular views; but perpetuating the teachings of the Qur'an will inevitably lead to barbaric acts.

I watch the news and I see be-robed, turban wearing men with their veiled wives talking about how Islam is not to blame, after all, these acts of barbarism and violence are "committed by a radical minority."
Take the blame, assholes. The gaping loopholes in your vague book of fairy tales caused this shit.
A regular psycho can only harm so many people.
A religious psycho can harm millions.

Religion needs to be cut out of society like the cancerous, festering tumor it is.

To atheists: Stand the fuck up for common sense and rationality. Don't be talked down. Fight for free speech. Challenge people's beliefs. Be in-your-face. Spread the word, sow dissent, do what's right.

To theists (etc.): What comes first to you? Your humanistic morals, or your religious beliefs?

If you're a moral person, and you've read this, you should know what needs to be done. If there is a benevolent God, he doesn't WANT followers, not if it means they'll commit atrocious acts. Believe what you want to believe. I'm not against philosophy or spirituality in general. Often, it's life's unanswerable questions that give some people the inspiration to do great things. You don't need an ancient holy book, you only need what's in your mind; your common sense and your moral compass.

[/rant].

By driving cars you ALL indirectly support drunk driving!

Wait, what? Don't judge a group based on nutcases they have no power over

By driving cars you ALL indirectly support drunk driving!

Wait, what? Don't judge a group based on nutcases they have no power over

We both know it's not the same.
There's a difference between driving a car, and perpetuating the idea that "well, it's okay to drink and drive in some circumstances, maybe".

I watch the news and I see various people talking about how regular drivers are not to blame, after all, these acts of stupidity and negligence toward the well-being of others are "committed by a minority of drivers."

Yoink

Yeah man, let's all go out and stand up for our non-beliefs!

I don't believe in unicorns or faeries...do I need to go out yelling at little children how fucking moronic and deranged they are to believe these things exist, yell at them about how cartoons and movies that portray these things 'manipulate' people? What breed of person is truly controlled by faerie tales? If you successfully answer that question, you just might understand why religion isn't the fucking problem.

I swear, this secular attempt of fixing the world through atheism is like putting a band-aid on a rape victim's vagina/asshole and expecting domination to go away.

I watch the news and I see various people talking about how advocates of drunk driving are not to blame, after all, these acts of stupidity and negligence toward the well-being of others are "committed by a minority of drunk drivers."

Fixed.

...
.

I have seen no evidence for the existence of the kind of definitive morality you are espousing. Do you have any?

I have seen no rational and sound arguments for it. Do you have any?

I don't believe in unicorns or faeries...do I need to go out yelling at little children how fucking moronic and deranged they are to believe these things exist, yell at them about how cartoons and movies that portray these things 'manipulate' people?

I'm sorry, I don't remember the last time someone was stoned to death to preserve the sanctity of fairies and unicorns.

What breed of person is truly controlled by faerie tales? If you successfully answer that question, you just might understand why religion isn't the fucking problem.

Idiots will ALWAYS be idiots, but feeding them shit about the inequality of women en masse (for example) probably isn't a good idea.

I have seen no evidence for the existence of a definitive morality. Do you have any?

I have seen no rational and sound arguments for it. Do you have any?

Do you need one?
I'm sure bludgeoning someone to death with a metal pipe would give you a pang of regret (as well as a huge erection, probably). That's an evolutionary trait to make sure we don't all kill each other, so we can reach our ultimate potential (whatever that is).

Just because you can't measure evil (or whatever) doesn't change the fact that you've probably looked at some animals being tortured or kids being shot on the interwebs and thought: 'that is some fucked-up shit'.

Fixed.

Your average religious person doesn't hurt anyone with his faith or is in any danger of doing so. The disturbing ones just tend to stick out. The average drunk driver risks himself and/or others every time he does it, even if he doesn't end up fucking up in the end

I'm sorry, I don't remember the last time someone was stoned to death to preserve the sanctity of fairies and unicorns.

Idiots will ALWAYS be idiots, but feeding them shit about the inequality of women en masse (for example) probably isn't a good idea.

Of course it's a bad idea. Consider this, though: Take away the systems that keep idiots complacent, and you'll have every last moron who doesn't know how to live independently LIVING INDEPENDENTLY. Having people do something they have no clue about leads to big, really fucking big, mistakes...especially when available options include murder, rape, genocide, theft, and so on. At least when these morons are confined to an institution such as religion, politics, community groups, and so on, you can predict with fair accuracy what kind of stupid shit they're going to do next.

Giving stupid people with an affinity for destruction and ignorance the element of surprise is a far worse idea, in my opinion.

Do you need one?
I'm sure bludgeoning someone to death with a metal pipe would give you a pang of regret (as well as a huge erection, probably). That's an evolutionary trait to make sure we don't all kill each other, so we can reach our ultimate potential (whatever that is).

Just because you can't measure evil (or whatever) doesn't change the fact that you've probably looked at some animals being tortured or kids being shot on the interwebs and thought: 'that is some fucked-up shit'.

This is the logical fallacy known as appeal to nature. You have not given any justification for making a connection between what is natural and what is good, please do.

As well as that, you have presumed that what ought to be can be derived from what is. Please explain how you did this, because philosophers have been working fruitlessly on that problem for centuries.

This is such a true thread.

To everyone saying that being a passive theist is like driving a car: In a way, it is. If everyone stopped driving, than the car companies would go out of business. However, one person driving a car doesn't go to all of their friends who don't drive cars and start saying how they'll suffer for all eternity if you don't drive a car. Not only that, you have to drive your type of car, and your model, too. Lets take a Honda Civic. People who drive Toyota's are infidels, and people who drive Ridgelines are cultists. Every so often, people who drive civics are going to kill people who drive Mitsubishi, but you'll look the other way and say that your attempt to spread and proliferate civic-driving across the whole of humanity had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, that'd be pretty damn stupid. But car driving isn't like that. Religion is.

Your average religious person doesn't hurt anyone with his faith or is in any danger of doing so. The disturbing ones just tend to stick out. The average drunk driver risks himself and/or others every time he does it, even if he doesn't end up fucking up in the end

The average religious person typically tries to spread their beliefs, which not only increases the odds of fanaticism, but also spreads their religion and in turn those converts spread more. Those who aren't converted are just attacked and threatened. The average religious person is blinded by their ignorance and acts as such, disrupting all who they contact.

Of course it's a bad idea. Consider this, though: Take away the systems that keep idiots complacent, and you'll have every last moron who doesn't know how to live independently LIVING INDEPENDENTLY.

Religion doesn't keep "natural" idiots complacent, religion keeps potential geniuses blinded and ignorant. Remove that, and they'll become smart.

Every religious believer has power over the "nuts". If they stop spreading their diesease, the "nuts" will have nothing to be nutty about and will either keep killing (if thats just what they have to do and there's some mysterious kill-gene) or stop, because they don't have all the brainwashing of religion to get pissed off over.

I think somones 'zoMg fash1st!!1" parents are making them go to sunday school.

I wonder though, if this isn't a well done devils advocate thread...pointing out the hypocracy of militant atheism.

The average religious person typically tries to spread their beliefs, which not only increases the odds of fanaticism, but also spreads their religion and in turn those converts spread more. Those who aren't converted are just attacked and threatened. The average religious person is blinded by their ignorance and acts as such, disrupting all who they contact.

Man it sucks to live there if most your people are such psychos about it. Yet I really doubt that's true, your average person can't be bothered trying to seriously convert shit. He may argue with nonbelievers but so what, people like to defend their viewpoints

The more there are drivers, the more drunk drivers simply by numbers. You still can't blame fanatics on normal people, everyone is responsible for their own actions

To theists (etc.): What comes first to you? Your humanistic morals, or your religious beliefs?

I am a theist but in no way religious. Organized religion is terrible, yes.

But how would forcing atheist ideals onto people be any different then an organized religion forcing theirs on to people?

But how would forcing atheist ideals onto people be any different then an organized religion forcing theirs on to people?

Atheists aren't a group with unified beliefs, get it into your skull already. It pains me to watch every religious guy ask what 'atheists believe', as if they find it preposterous that a group might not share common viewpoints beyond the lack of belief in God

So yeah, it'd be impossible to force 'atheist ideals' to anyone seeing there is no such thing. There's only individuals that might or might not agree on some things. you know, people decide for themselves. Absurd!

Saying, "This group of people is bad" or "This group of people is the cause of our problems" is not wise. The group that is responsible for our problems is humanity as a whole.

I could easily argue that GOVERNMENT is the problem, not religion, and that unless you are an anarchist you are a consumer pig that shall be dealt with!

You attack only what you are afraid of, you are afraid of only what you do not know(usually the future; see "anxiety").

It pains me to watch every religious guy ask what 'atheists believe', as if they find it preposterous that a group might not share common viewpoints beyond the lack of belief in God

Most atheists tend to have more in common than JUST a disbelief in God, though. They tend to worship science and teleology. If not, they become nihilists. And from there, they will eventually become spiritual or die...

Saying, "This group of people is bad" or "This group of people is the cause of our problems" is not wise. The group that is responsible for our problems is humanity as a whole.

I could easily argue that GOVERNMENT is the problem, not religion, and that unless you are an anarchist you are a consumer pig that shall be dealt with!

You attack only what you are afraid of, you are afraid of only what you do not know(usually the future; see "anxiety").



Most atheists tend to have more in common than JUST a disbelief in God, though. They tend to worship science and teleology. If not, they become nihilists. And from there, they will eventually become spiritual or die...

It isn't really groups that cause problems. Its the perpetuation of ideas that promote a certain caste above people and also allows a framework thats designed for exploitation.

Government is another problem. However, I doubt you'll see many anarchists who would "deal with" people who disagree with them rather than win them over. The difference between authoritarianism and anarchist and between atheism and theism is that in the latter, there exists a clear leader and hierarchial distribution of power in a pyramidial structure, ready for anyone to grab up the top and rule the whole thing, and in the former, all power rests with the individual and nobody has control over anyone else. The biggest benefit of there not being a set of "atheist beliefs" is that nobody can claim to control those beliefs or establish specifics to those beliefs or control the policy of those beliefs and thus steal the system. The problem with religions lies in that believing that there's a God on top allows more people in the middle.

This is true; people attack what they are afraid of, unless they run from it. I attack concentrations of power that I feel could be used to oppress or control me in particular and society or communities in a larger scale. Thus I attack religion and authoritarianism.

Atheists have many diverse beliefs, as had been said. Science isn't something that can be worshiped; it lacks the quality of having a dogmatic faith-based system. Nihilism and lack of belief of the universe having a purpose are different things. You don't die of nihilism, and nihilism isn't some little state that one reaches when one "hits bottom" or whatever it is you're implying.

Most atheists tend to have more in common than JUST a disbelief in God, though. They tend to worship science and teleology. If not, they become nihilists. And from there, they will eventually become spiritual or die...

Most theists tend to like pie

See? THAT's how much use the fucking shit you spewed is worth. How do you worship say robotics or chemistry? That makes no fucking sense, 'science' develops new stuff or collects new information, it's not a set of beliefs or some mighty force you bow to, that's just retarded. And I really like the either/or you have going there, either people worship the great robot God or go emo and cry how nothing matters. Think before you post

^
I thought Rizzos post was right on the money. "You have to serve somebody"

Religion doesn't keep "natural" idiots complacent, religion keeps potential geniuses blinded and ignorant. Remove that, and they'll become smart.

You really think someone that can't figure out how to doubt what they're told is potentially a genius, that they're just being unfairly held in some arcane belief structure?

If you can't, all on your own, figure out how the world around you interacts with you...you're just not a genius.

Wow. Talk about faith.

Religions can not keep the smart ignorant, questions are what make for learning, and if they don't see questions and seek answers, they've chosen ignorance. Complacent thoughts are hardly a signal of further intelligence.

^^ I know a good deal of people who have the capacity to be smart. But they're blinded by their communities (which are totally inclusive; you're looked down upon if you leave the bubble for anything) and don't even have the structures to ask the questions. If it wasn't for their brainwashing, I have no doubt that some of them (I have a few in mind atm) would surpass me, but they limit themselves and dont' think about things because its "wrong".

If you're raised in a box, and all you know is in the box, and someone tells you that there's a world outside the box, but you can't see it and everyone tells you you'll be tortured if you think or act outside the box, is there a box in your mind if your mind has lost the ability to perceive the outside of the box?

"They tend to worship science"

This, this right here is why atheists need to stand up for themselves. Theists will use ever dirty trick in the book to make it seem as if they've beaten you, including making shit up in order to drag you down to their level.

If you're not worshiping their god, you're worshiping somebody else's god, or Satan, or science, or (and yes folks, I've heard this before too) Carl Sagan. Religious fucknauts once accused me of worshiping Carl Sagan. Can you believe that shit? Don't get me wrong, Sagan was a kickin' rad dude, but he is no god.

No, I don't worship science, I don't worship anything. Science is just a tool that happens to work. If somebody can conclusively prove that taking a shit 10 times a day will cure world hunger, I'll be the first to break out the Ex-lax. Until then, I'm just one of an apparently growing number of people who don't take kindly to others perpetuating stories as truth.

That's where my problem with religion lies; the perpetuation of the line of thought that if you can just believe in an idea enough, it automatically makes it true. The perpetuation of the idea that nobody has to back up their half-baked opinions about things they know nothing about (see: evolution), and that they are somehow equivalent to a theory worked out by a team of biologists.

Just because you can "feel" god does not mean he is there. I get a shiver on the back of my neck on creepy winter nights when the lights are all off; that does not mean the spirit of Edgar Allen Poe is fucking with me. Just because you want god to be there doesn't mean he is, and even if you have a very old book of stories that either really don't make any sense or have awful, awful things in them (like genocide, for example) that does not mean your invisible sky buddy exists. Just because right now, no one can explain an event logically doesn't automatically mean "goddidit", just as a UFO sighting doesn't automatically mean you should start gearing up for a Klingon invasion.

Just because you have a question, does not mean you get to just make up an answer and call it a day. That's not how shit gets done, people. That's not how things improve.

Religion promotes a whole culture of ignorance about other people and the world around us, if "goddidit" were an acceptable answer to every question, there would be no need for people to actually think and reason their way to solve problems and answer those questions. Problem is, god is not an acceptable solution since there's nothing to indicate that it's anything than a fairy tale, concocted by our ancient ancestors that quite frankly, didn't know any better.

Look at what's happening now. Vital stem cell research is being halted in the US because of religious reasons, because people just don't understand what the fuck they're talking about. Creationism is being taught along side evolution as an "alternative theory" in some places, even though it has no place in a science class. Gay people who love each other and want the same right to marry their significant others as their straight brothers and sisters are being denied that right, and why? Because of some bullshit written in the Bible, because too many people can't accept that "loving the cock" is not really anyone's damn business but the ones that want it.

We need to promote logic, reason and the ability to think about things instead of just accepting that "welp, the Bible/Quran/What-the-fuck-ever says this, that and the other thing, all is solved!" Unfortunately, most people are stupid bastards, so it's going to take getting uppity and into people's faces to make any headway.

Unfortunately, most people are stupid bastards, so it's going to take getting uppity and into people's faces to make any headway.

This is my point, really.

The group that is responsible for our problems is humanity as a whole.

A coincidence? Humanity as a whole is more religious than non-religious.

I could easily argue that GOVERNMENT is the problem, not religion, and that unless you are an anarchist you are a consumer pig that shall be dealt with!

And he could easily retort that GOVERNMENT is comprised of religious groups acting in accordance to what strokes their particular group dogma.

You attack only what you are afraid of, you are afraid of only what you do not know(usually the future; see "anxiety").

Captain Obvious to the rescue! :D

Most atheists tend to have more in common than JUST a disbelief in God, though. They tend to worship science and teleology. If not, they become nihilists. And from there, they will eventually become spiritual or die...

Thank you Rizzo, for being the foremost authority on the nature of Atheists. :rolleyes:

You people throw the word "worship" around a bit too loosely. Where is the homage? The ceremonies? The praise and the submissive gestures?

Science is cold and factual. It doesn't lend itself to sanctity and doesn't require being held in sacred regard. It is a tool, not a Higher Power.

To the OP:

Your enthusiasm is palpable, but all that hate is going to not only drag you down, but make make it exceedingly difficult to differentiate YOU from THEM.

My suggestion to you:
Continue to spread the awareness, but learn to either completely squelch or carefully conceal your seething hatred.

To the OP:

Your enthusiasm is palpable, but all that hate is going to not only drag you down, but make make it exceedingly difficult to differentiate YOU from THEM.

My suggestion to you:
Continue to spread the awareness, but learn to either completely squelch or carefully conceal your seething hatred.

Why should he staunch his hatred? From his hate flows power, from his anger, strength. He must reach out to his anger. Only then can he defeat them.

Why should he staunch his hatred? From his hate flows power, from his anger, strength. He must reach out to his anger. Only then can he defeat them.

Shall I succumb to the Dark Side, Lord Vader?!
:O

Why should he staunch his hatred? From his hate flows power, from his anger, strength. He must reach out to his anger. Only then can he defeat them.

hahahahahaha

ps: man who speaks much knows little.

...


*Applauds* Thank you, Surak. My views exactly.

Why should he staunch his hatred? From his hate flows power, from his anger, strength. He must reach out to his anger. Only then can he defeat them.

Unless his anger defeats him first. The best revenge is living well. Seething takes energy. Energy that could be placed elsewhere, still fighting the same cause.

aNaRcHy atheism FTL!
Unless he's in High School, which will then be understandable.
:rolleyes:

Unless his anger defeats him first. The best revenge is living well. Seething takes energy. Energy that could be placed elsewhere, still fighting the same cause.

aNaRcHy atheism FTL!
Unless he's in High School, which will then be understandable.
:rolleyes:


Haha, yeah you don't want a bunch of high school kids to do to atheism what they have done to anarchy. I mean if you look at the actual idea of anarchy it's a pretty good one, no hierachy means people can actually achieve equality.. but now whenever people think of anarchy they just think of nihilist high school kids who are addicted to Nietzsche.. or kids throwing molotov cocktails and destruction.

Please, please don't let atheism turn into that. Education and understanding always get much further than violence and hatred, even if it does take longer.

Atheists aren't a group with unified beliefs, get it into your skull already.

Its in my skull.

And I agree with what rizzo said in response.

But really, I should have typed Pyronos instead of the word atheist. What a terrible, terrible mistake.

:rolleyes:

Yeah AF, that post was a Dark Side joke. Pyronos got it and thus shall be dubbed Darth Xiao-chang.

Most ignorant high schoolers don't get the actual idea of anarchy, but I know quite a few that do, and as one of them, I do my part to try to stop that. Hell, none of them have ever even heard of Nietzsche, they just think "anarchy=chaos" because that's what their 60 year old english teacher told them.

Totse's a big problem there. I mean, look at the "Ten commandments of Anarchy" file, which is in the Anarchy section FFS. That has nothing at all to do with anarchy or anarchism at all.

But this is a digression. Have those who oppose us backed down? Again? Why is it that the atheists always seem to mop the floor with whoever opposes us?

Maybe because we're right?

Or is it because all the christians are praying for our souls?

Either way, this thread has gone far enough out to be ours. Victory!

^^ I know a good deal of people who have the capacity to be smart. But they're blinded by their communities (which are totally inclusive; you're looked down upon if you leave the bubble for anything) and don't even have the structures to ask the questions. If it wasn't for their brainwashing, I have no doubt that some of them (I have a few in mind atm) would surpass me, but they limit themselves and dont' think about things because its "wrong".

If you're raised in a box, and all you know is in the box, and someone tells you that there's a world outside the box, but you can't see it and everyone tells you you'll be tortured if you think or act outside the box, is there a box in your mind if your mind has lost the ability to perceive the outside of the box?

My community is insanely religious. Insanely government-oriented. Insanely insane. What has always been the source of my knowledge has been my ability to see a question, and the decision to seek out the answers of my own accord, knowing full well that others will try to demean my life if the answers I find aren't the same that they have come to through either belief or their own journeys.

The journey for knowledge is not something that can be locked away. It breaks through any chains, spiritual, mental, or physical. I was heavily discouraged from asking questions, but I asked them anyways because I was lucky enough to possess the trait that makes someone with a strong upstairs processor truly 'genius': I WANTED TO LEARN MORE THAN I WANTED TO BE SAFE.

Being able to process large quantities of data does not make someone a genius, or even intelligent. They have to have the drive to break free from 'normal' thinking and seek out something different...they have to value the journey more than their safety; truly free thought endangers. That idea is not a lie that the religious folk tell; they're quite up front, honest, and accurate about it. It's to the individual whether or not risk discourages them from reward.

I was raised in the box. Told there was nothing but death outside of the box. I left the damned box anyways because I don't have much going for me in the way of fear.

Maybe I'm just a fluke though.

But this is a digression. Have those who oppose us backed down? Again? Why is it that the atheists always seem to mop the floor with whoever opposes us?

Maybe because we're right?

Or is it because all the christians are praying for our souls?

Either way, this thread has gone far enough out to be ours. Victory!

Or maybe it's because you are more likley to side with people you agree with. .

they just think "anarchy=chaos" because that's what their 60 year old english teacher told them.

Yeah I'm sure people would behave if their actions had no consequences whatsoever, especially considering some already do despite potential consequences, wonder how they'd act if they didn't even have to hide anymore. The whole idea is as fucking ridiculous as communism is because you're basing it on humans. You might as well work with rabid dogs

Yeah I'm sure people would behave if their actions had no consequences whatsoever, especially considering some already do despite potential consequences, wonder how they'd act if they didn't even have to hide anymore. The whole idea is as fucking ridiculous as communism is because you're basing it on humans. You might as well work with rabid dogs

Sadly, a discussion for another thread.
But because I hate leaving questions unanswered...
http://www.anarchistresistance.org/abolishthebank/areyouananarchist.shtml


Maybe I'm just a fluke though.
You are. I showed totse to the person who I based that post off, and she asked me why I was going on such "evil" websites. You're here, so you're obviously not normal.

Anarchy is a shitty idea regardless of high school kids actions. They can't ruin atheism.

This, this right here is why atheists need to stand up for themselves. Theists will use ever dirty trick in the book to make it seem as if they've beaten you, including making shit up in order to drag you down to their level.

If you're not worshiping their god, you're worshiping somebody else's god, or Satan, or science, or (and yes folks, I've heard this before too) Carl Sagan. Religious fucknauts once accused me of worshiping Carl Sagan. Can you believe that shit? Don't get me wrong, Sagan was a kickin' rad dude, but he is no god.

You just responded to an incorrect generalization by making another one. Congratulations.

I'm just one of an apparently growing number of people who don't take kindly to others perpetuating stories as truth.

Everyone thinks their stories are true or else they would feel no need to perpetuate them. Why do you think you are trying to spread atheism?

That's where my problem with religion lies; the perpetuation of the line of thought that if you can just believe in an idea enough, it automatically makes it true.

This is an utter strawman. I don't know a single person, other than myself, who thinks that, so even if some religious people did, it is not a problem inherent with religion.

The perpetuation of the idea that nobody has to back up their half-baked opinions about things they know nothing about (see: evolution), and that they are somehow equivalent to a theory worked out by a team of biologists.

How does creationism or intelligent design even effect you? It's not as if they are asking people to pray to supply clean power or something. In fact, support of creationism only challenges interpretations of the past. I know of at least one anthropologist who believes that deification or religiousness of past people or events with no bearing on today is a societal mechanism for making beliefs harmless.

Just because you can "feel" god does not mean he is there. I get a shiver on the back of my neck on creepy winter nights when the lights are all off; that does not mean the spirit of Edgar Allen Poe is fucking with me. Just because you want god to be there doesn't mean he is,

And just because you want God not to be there doesn't mean he isn't.

and even if you have a very old book of stories that either really don't make any sense or have awful, awful things in them (like genocide, for example)

I bet you can't justify the ethics you are asserting in this sentence using science or logic. In fact, I bet you believe these things entirely on faith caused through social conditioning.

that does not mean your invisible sky buddy exists.

Name calling is just going to make people close themselves off to your ideas. It will not make them listen.

Just because right now, no one can explain an event logically doesn't automatically mean "goddidit", just as a UFO sighting doesn't automatically mean you should start gearing up for a Klingon invasion.

Yes, but if no one can explain an event logically, that means it is possible that God did it. Even if you can explain an event logically, that still doesn't rule out 'God did it'.

I wonder if you can justify your belief in the usefulness of logic?

Just because you have a question, does not mean you get to just make up an answer and call it a day. That's not how shit gets done, people. That's not how things improve.

1. These people did not make up their answers. They either happened or someone else thousands of years ago made them up, but they honestly believe they are the truth.

2. The term 'improve' is entirely subjective. What a christian calls an improvement is completely different to what you call one. And in fact, by their definition, belief in christianity is a huge improvement. Unless you can somehow justify why your definition is objectively superior?

Religion promotes a whole culture of ignorance about other people and the world around us, if "goddidit" were an acceptable answer to every question, there would be no need for people to actually think and reason their way to solve problems and answer those questions.

1. This is a strawman. The number of religious people who will argue that God is doing something and ignoring the scientific explanation is tiny. In fact, if you weren't so blinded by your hatred, you would see that many feel that God is using scientific explainable methods to do what he feels is needed, except where it directly contradicts their belief (which usually only occurs with interpretations of the past that have little effect on the present). Can you give a single example where ideas in the superiority of religion over science have led to a decrease in living standards? Regardless, it would be the exception not the rule, meaning it is not a problem inherent with religion.

They do not discredit the usefulness of science, in fact, I'm betting that the majority of inventions you see around you were invented by someone with religious beliefs.

2. How can you justify an imperative to think and reason?

Problem is, god is not an acceptable solution since there's nothing to indicate that it's anything than a fairy tale, concocted by our ancient ancestors that quite frankly, didn't know any better.

There is also no definitive proof that it is a fairy tale. So are you criticising someone for taking up a different position to you on a question with no definitive answers?


Look at what's happening now. Vital stem cell research is being halted in the US because of religious reasons, because people just don't understand what the fuck they're talking about. Creationism is being taught along side evolution as an "alternative theory" in some places, even though it has no place in a science class. Gay people who love each other and want the same right to marry their significant others as their straight brothers and sisters are being denied that right, and why? Because of some bullshit written in the Bible, because too many people can't accept that "loving the cock" is not really anyone's damn business but the ones that want it.

I wonder if you can prove that any of this is a bad thing using anything other than faith or arbitrary assumption?


We need to promote logic, reason and the ability to think about things instead of just accepting that "welp, the Bible/Quran/What-the-fuck-ever says this, that and the other thing, all is solved!"

Can you justify this imperative using logic, reason and the ability to think about things?

Unfortunately, most people are stupid bastards, so it's going to take getting uppity and into people's faces to make any headway.

This is what happens when you stare too long into the abyss.

FH, you shouldn't be posting here, none of us exist.

I believe solipsism is logically valid and by all our methods of testing for soundness, it is closer to sound than any other positions (and I find this very useful); but I am not a solipsist.

There is also no definitive proof that it is a fairy tale. So are you criticising someone for taking up a different position to you on a question with no definitive answers?

You're the one pulling the answers out of your ass, of course he's going to criticize you. No one takes Flying Spaghetti Monster seriously, why is magic man more plausible? Because some people wanted to control the rest thousands of years ago and whipped up a new religion based on everything fucking concievable and then threw in their own things like Hell?

My Winnie the Pooh books might be real, you never know! Stop laughing at me, they could! Yawn

You're the one pulling the answers out of your ass, of course he's going to criticize you. No one takes Flying Spaghetti Monster seriously, why is magic man more plausible? Because some people wanted to control the rest thousands of years ago and whipped up a new religion based on everything fucking concievable and then threw in their own things like Hell?

My Winnie the Pooh books might be real, you never know! Stop laughing at me, they could! Yawn

1. I'm not a Christian.

2. I have not criticised anyone for having a different position on a question without a definitive answer. I never said I find Christianity any more or less plausible than FSM or Winnie the Pooh; and I believe anyone who criticises someone who believes in FSM or Winnie to be making exactly the same mistake of 'criticising someone for taking up a different position to you on a question with no definitive answers'.

But you're just being needlessly argumentative. Yes, utter nihilism is valid, but thats a useless point to make.

Feel free to blather on about how you're not sure if you have a left hand or not, but I really don't want to hear it.

But you're just being needlessly argumentative. Yes, utter nihilism is valid, but thats a useless point to make.

Feel free to blather on about how you're not sure if you have a left hand or not, but I really don't want to hear it.

I always find it interesting how many people who champion the cause of logic and reason and skepticism will throw them out the window when there is a chance it may challenge their cherished beliefs. It is fascinating that people unwilling to follow the thought train all the way to the city will mock people who get off a few stations earlier for exactly the same reasons.

Also, why is nihilism pointless? (the answer is quite meaningful to this discussion, even though I am not a nihilist myself)

Yeah man, let's all go out and stand up for our non-beliefs!

I don't believe in unicorns or faeries...do I need to go out yelling at little children how fucking moronic and deranged they are to believe these things exist, yell at them about how cartoons and movies that portray these things 'manipulate' people? What breed of person is truly controlled by faerie tales? If you successfully answer that question, you just might understand why religion isn't the fucking problem.

I swear, this secular attempt of fixing the world through atheism is like putting a band-aid on a rape victim's vagina/asshole and expecting domination to go away.

You dont see things like the person you are waging an attack on. You obviously havent opened your mind enough to understand. Organized religion is fucking everywhere in america. Oh i got a grammy.....thanks to the big man upstairs. I scored a touchdown. Point in the air. God made it possible. People get married in a church. People look down upon others who dont believe in God. People make a business out of others believing in God so that they dont go to hell. Religion is in politics. It has an impact positively or negatively no matter what because its everywhere and we dont accept anything but christianity.

Man it sucks to live there if most your people are such psychos about it. Yet I really doubt that's true, your average person can't be bothered trying to seriously convert shit. He may argue with nonbelievers but so what, people like to defend their viewpoints

The more there are drivers, the more drunk drivers simply by numbers. You still can't blame fanatics on normal people, everyone is responsible for their own actions

Would those people that argue their viewpoints about God be willing listen to someone preach about their beliefs in vampires? Or dragons? Of course not because those things are nonsense to them. There are stories from history that would maybe support some of those things. But thats crazy right. Its scary that people would believe in someone or something that has absolutely no proof that they are there. Just because someone told them that from when they were little til or by reading what someone wrote doesnt mean its true or right. But fear can do alot of things. People only believe because they want to be saved. Theyre scared they will burn in hell. Otherwise why would anyone sit in church and kneel and stand up and sing weird songs for an hour on a beautiful sunday morning? For the fun? Nah. From fear. If that isnt a sickness I dont know what is. That is scary if you think about it. And remember....where there is fear there can be no wisdom.

"You just responded to an incorrect generalization by making another one. Congratulations."

More than enough religionists are like that to be a problem.

"Everyone thinks their stories are true or else they would feel no need to perpetuate them. Why do you think you are trying to spread atheism?"

Because unlike the assclowns that run around with their heads up the asses of fairy tales, I have logic and reason and back up my claims.

"This is an utter strawman. I don't know a single person, other than myself, who thinks that, so even if some religious people did, it is not a problem inherent with religion."

That's bullshit. Religion perpetuates that kind of lunacy with circular reasoning all the time; if you can't see that then you're either stupid or just not paying attention. Theists try to justify that nonsense with their "faith" all the time.

"How does creationism or intelligent design even effect you?"

It's affecting me by pretending it's true, but being taught to children who will grow up thinking it's fact. That will affect future advancements in science and thusly stunt the growth of our species. Teaching Creationism as fact is lying to people who are looking for informations about the origins and formation of our species.

"It's not as if they are asking people to pray to supply clean power or something. In fact, support of creationism only challenges interpretations of the past."

Buddy, it's called "making shit up." It's not science, it doesn't actually explain anything and it's sole purpose is to attempt to "legitimize" religion in the eyes of the population. Every claim made by creationists or advocates of Intelligent Design is refutable, talkorigins.org does a fantasic job of debunking that crap.

"I know of at least one anthropologist who believes that deification or religiousness of past people or events with no bearing on today is a societal mechanism for making beliefs harmless."

I'm so happy for you, tell that to the fuckloads of people that have had their lives negatively affected or outright ended by religion.

"And just because you want God not to be there doesn't mean he isn't."

I'd love it if there were an all powerful, all loving being out there watching over me! That said, I'm also not a fucking moron so I know that's about as likely as Hendrix coming back from the grave so he can rock one last time.

"I bet you can't justify the ethics you are asserting in this sentence using science or logic. In fact, I bet you believe these things entirely on faith caused through social conditioning."

If you mean I believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning like it has for the past couple million years, then yeah, I believe that. I also don't think it takes a genius to recognize that maybe a book that goes "Yeah, ok!" to slavery is such a great guide to live by. Ethics is not the realm of religion, fuckface.

"Name calling is just going to make people close themselves off to your ideas. It will not make them listen. "

Are you kidding? They won't listen anyway. Logic has no effect on these people. I just like to blow off steam every so often.

"Yes, but if no one can explain an event logically, that means it is possible that God did it. Even if you can explain an event logically, that still doesn't rule out 'God did it'."

It doesn't rule out that Anubis, Thor, Captain Kirk or any other character I pull out of my ass either. Chances are *really fucking good* however, that none of them had anything to do with it, and choosing the "Goddidit!" explaination is far more irrational than saying "Well, I don't know for sure, but it sure as fuck wasn't that."

"I wonder if you can justify your belief in the usefulness of logic?"

Yes, because it works, dipshit.

"1. These people did not make up their answers. They either happened or someone else thousands of years ago made them up, but they honestly believe they are the truth."

That does not make them valid. And yes, many religious folks pull ideas out of their asses all the time. There was an explosion of New Age douchebags prancing around town a while back fucking shit up, they had some pretty cracked up "ideas."

"2. The term 'improve' is entirely subjective. What a christian calls an improvement is completely different to what you call one. And in fact, by their definition, belief in christianity is a huge improvement. Unless you can somehow justify why your definition is objectively superior?"

Their ideas of "improvement" include teenagers having a total lack of sex education, the banning of women's right to control their own bodies and in many, many cases the subjugation of secular law. That these things are bullshit should quite frankly, be self evident to anyone that isn't a royal douchebag.

"1. This is a strawman. The number of religious people who will argue that God is doing something and ignoring the scientific explanation is tiny. In fact, if you weren't so blinded by your hatred, you would see that many feel that God is using scientific explainable methods to do what he feels is needed, except where it directly contradicts their belief (which usually only occurs with interpretations of the past that have little effect on the present)."

There aren't enough of these people, and they're not much better than their more wacky brethren since they do *nothing* to stop them. Besides, they still teach their children that emotions are proof that something exists, amongst other illogical bullshit. In short, they're not helping.

Can you give a single example where ideas in the superiority of religion over science have led to a decrease in living standards?"

Hello Dark Ages.

"Regardless, it would be the exception not the rule, meaning it is not a problem inherent with religion."

Wrong. Religion is illogical at best and outright insane at worst. Read some of what those people call Holy Books and you'll see the horrors contained within.

"They do not discredit the usefulness of science, in fact, I'm betting that the majority of inventions you see around you were invented by someone with religious beliefs."

When the majority of the people in the world are religious, that's a given. Being religious does not mean one is incapable of thinking logically. Indeed, the fact that Christians aren't running around stoning disbelievers to death these days is a sign that all humans are capable of rational thought to some extent; however cognitive dissonance still exists. This is why an engineer that comes home from working at Microsoft all day can still be a drooling moron during Sunday services.

The fact that we've made so many advances in spite of various religions doing their damnest to stay in the Dark Ages is proof of what humans are capable of when we (if you'll forgive the pun) put away childish things. It's one of the few things that gives me hope for the future.

"2. How can you justify an imperative to think and reason?"

You keep asking stupid questions like this, you really are an obtuse shitheel aren't ya? The answer is: Because it WORKS. Nobody got anywhere by sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs.

"There is also no definitive proof that it is a fairy tale. So are you criticising someone for taking up a different position to you on a question with no definitive answers?
"

There's plenty of evidence that it's a fairy tale, you moron. Again, just because it's written down does not mean it's automatically true. People coming back from the dead? Talking snakes? Talking flora? Beings that are internally inconsistent and logically impossible to exist? Outright contradictions in the narrative? Welcome to fiction world!

"I wonder if you can prove that any of this is a bad thing using anything other than faith or arbitrary assumption?"

If you need me to sit here and actually explain to you why stopping people who love each other from getting married for arbitrary religious reasons in a secular country is a *bad* thing, then you're just fucking stupid, I'm sorry.

Seriously, that's self fucking evident to anyone that's not an asshole. If you have to sit there and think long and hard about why that is wrong, then no amount of explaining it logically is going to help you. I'll give you one hint, though: "Gayz r baad!" is not a valid reason. I imagine you'll just ask "why?" again, though.

"Can you justify this imperative using logic, reason and the ability to think about things?"

I already have, you dickfaced assasin of joy.

"This is what happens when you stare too long into the abyss."

If by "the abyss" you mean "your posts" then this is most intelligent thing I've ever seen you say.

Surak roffles my waffles.

But, yes, Fallinghouse is just being a pedantic bastard.
Ultimately, you could use the 'u tel me y u fink dat useing teh objectiv raesonz' pseudo-nihilistic argument for fucking everything.

Using your current line of reasoning, it's perfectly acceptable to anally rape children with knives, or grate live kittens to death.

Before I start, I'm going to point out that your overt reliance on ad hominem is not a particularly rational or helpful argument style.

More than enough religionists are like that to be a problem.

Everyone who makes generalisations thinks they are true.

Source please.

Because unlike the assclowns that run around with their heads up the asses of fairy tales, I have logic and reason and back up my claims.

Everyone either thinks they have logic and reason and to back up their claims or that logic and reason are unimportant, and you have conclusively failed to demonstrate that the latter is wrong.

That's bullshit. Religion perpetuates that kind of lunacy with circular reasoning all the time; if you can't see that then you're either stupid or just not paying attention. Theists try to justify that nonsense with their "faith" all the time.

Having faith in something is not the same as saying I believe in it therefore it is true.

It's affecting me by pretending it's true, but being taught to children who will grow up thinking it's fact.

Oh the horror of having people disagree with you?!? That must be terrible.

That will affect future advancements in science and thusly stunt the growth of our species.

1. Please justify that increased scientific understanding is synonymous with the growth of our species.

2. Please suggest a mechanism for how belief in an interpretation of the past will effect future advancements.

Teaching Creationism as fact is lying to people who are looking for informations about the origins and formation of our species.

...and the creationists say that teaching evolution 'as fact is lying to people who are looking for informations about the origins and formation of our species.'


Buddy, it's called "making shit up." It's not science, it doesn't actually explain anything and it's sole purpose is to attempt to "legitimize" religion in the eyes of the population. Every claim made by creationists or advocates of Intelligent Design is refutable, talkorigins.org does a fantasic job of debunking that crap.

1. They don't care that it places science above religion, and you have yet to demonstrate why they should do otherwise.

2. They did not make it up. In their eyes, their sources are even more accurate than the laws of thermodynamics are to you.

I'm so happy for you, tell that to the fuckloads of people that have had their lives negatively affected or outright ended by religion.

This is entirely irrelevant to the comment I made.

I'd love it if there were an all powerful, all loving being out there watching over me! That said, I'm also not a fucking moron so I know that's about as likely as Hendrix coming back from the grave so he can rock one last time.

If it is unlikely, then show me how you calculated this probability. I bet that such a thing is impossible and your prejudices made you assume that it was true regardless.

If you mean I believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning like it has for the past couple million years, then yeah, I believe that. I also don't think it takes a genius to recognize that maybe a book that goes "Yeah, ok!" to slavery is such a great guide to live by. Ethics is not the realm of religion, fuckface...

...Their ideas of "improvement" include teenagers having a total lack of sex education, the banning of women's right to control their own bodies and in many, many cases the subjugation of secular law. That these things are bullshit should quite frankly, be self evident to anyone that isn't a royal douchebag....

...If you need me to sit here and actually explain to you why stopping people who love each other from getting married for arbitrary religious reasons in a secular country is a *bad* thing, then you're just fucking stupid, I'm sorry.

Seriously, that's self fucking evident to anyone that's not an asshole. If you have to sit there and think long and hard about why that is wrong, then no amount of explaining it logically is going to help you. I'll give you one hint, though: "Gayz r baad!" is not a valid reason. I imagine you'll just ask "why?" again, though.


Your responses here substitute ad hominem for argument. You have not justified the ethical imperatives you were asserting, only said that I am crazy if I don't already agree with you. This is not a justification, but it is what I expected.

Prove that slavery, abstinence education, banning gay marriage and banning abortion is wrong.

Are you kidding? They won't listen anyway. Logic has no effect on these people. I just like to blow off steam every so often.

"Being religious does not mean one is incapable of thinking logically"

Recognise who made that quote by any chance?

It doesn't rule out that Anubis, Thor, Captain Kirk or any other character I pull out of my ass either. Chances are *really fucking good* however, that none of them had anything to do with it, and choosing the "Goddidit!" explaination is far more irrational than saying "Well, I don't know for sure, but it sure as fuck wasn't that."

The fact that it doesn't rule out other possibilities does not mean that the specific possibility I am discussing is wrong. Once again, prove that it is unlikely.

Yes, because it works, dipshit....

...You keep asking stupid questions like this, you really are an obtuse shitheel aren't ya? The answer is: Because it WORKS. Nobody got anywhere by sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs.

Now who's using circular arguments? You. If you presume logic to prove logic then you are being illogical and your argument self destructs. And by arguing that it has worked in the past therefore it will work in the future, you are using inductive logic. So, please justify the use of logic.


That does not make them valid.

Since I'm betting that you can't prove your beliefs are sound any better than them, believing their beliefs are true puts them on exactly the same level as you.

And yes, many religious folks pull ideas out of their asses all the time.

Source please.

There was an explosion of New Age douchebags prancing around town a while back fucking shit up, they had some pretty cracked up "ideas."


Yeah because if someone has ideas that seem different, they must have made them up /sarcasm.

This does not in any way prove that religious people make up their beliefs.

There aren't enough of these people, and they're not much better than their more wacky brethren since they do *nothing* to stop them. Besides, they still teach their children that emotions are proof that something exists, amongst other illogical bullshit. In short, they're not helping.

1. Faith is not the same as saying something is true because I believe it.

2. Actually, the amount of people who will accept scientific explanations is in the huge majority, or else use of prayer to heal would give the US an average lifespan of about 40. Since it is closer to 80, I think it can safely be assumed that most are going to feel that God works through medicine rather than instead of it.


Hello Dark Ages.

1. The idea that the dark ages were a 'dark' period for humanity is a myth perpetuated by Byzantine Scholars in order to glorify the memory of Rome.

2. Even if this myth were true, it seems far more likely that this period was caused by political turmoil rather than religion.

Wrong. Religion is illogical at best and outright insane at worst. Read some of what those people call Holy Books and you'll see the horrors contained within.

Au contraire, the very fact that humanity has steadily increased in quality of life despite the huge prevalence of religion proves that cases where religion has a negative effect are indeed exceptions.

When the majority of the people in the world are religious, that's a given. Being religious does not mean one is incapable of thinking logically. Indeed, the fact that Christians aren't running around stoning disbelievers to death these days is a sign that all humans are capable of rational thought to some extent; however cognitive dissonance still exists. This is why an engineer that comes home from working at Microsoft all day can still be a drooling moron during Sunday services.

Your presumption that he is making an incorrect choice by attending church is exactly what you are trying to prove. This is a circular argument.

The fact that we've made so many advances in spite of various religions doing their damnest to stay in the Dark Ages is proof of what humans are capable of when we (if you'll forgive the pun) put away childish things. It's one of the few things that gives me hope for the future.

Please prove that any religion other than fringe luddite groups has tried to keep humanity in the so called dark ages.

There's plenty of evidence that it's a fairy tale, you moron. Again, just because it's written down does not mean it's automatically true.

That is not evidence that it is a fairy tale.

People coming back from the dead? Talking snakes? Talking flora? Beings that are internally inconsistent and logically impossible to exist? Outright contradictions in the narrative? Welcome to fiction world!

You are presuming that the events it describes are impossible in order to prove that they are impossible. This is a circular argument.

In fact, I believe it is quite impossible to prove that anything is impossible (including this sentence being wrong); but go ahead and prove me wrong, show that these things are impossible.


I already have, you dickfaced assasin of joy.

No you haven't, you pioneer in the usage of ad hominem.

Pointless fucking objectivism.

Seriously. Just no.
You're irritating the piss out of me.

What your entire argument boils down to is that everything is meaningless and there's no point in anything existing at all.

If that's the case, though, why are you even posting?
Shouldn't you be hanging from a rafter by now?

Prove that slavery, abstinence education, banning gay marriage and banning abortion is wrong.

They're all likely to lead to someone's suffering. Slavery should be easy unless you're the kind of guy that needs to be taught to breathe, abstinence education doesn't work and seeing the kids haven't been taught shit about condoms or anything else, they stand a good chance of getting pregnant and/or get an STD or several. Banning gay marriage deprives the faggots of the happiness it would have brought them and gives them the clear message we don't really like them despite anything we say to please our partners in the political circle-jerk. Banning abortion pretty much ends the good times of life by chaining them to the baby should people get pregnant against their will. Not to mention the percentage of deaths in the coat hanger method you drive them to. If they give the baby away, they still get to remember that for the rest of their lives instead of the memory of getting some pills that induce a period and some unpleasant cramping that follows. And the baby that's given away is likely to spend all his early life in the government sponsored trash bin where no one loves them and are more likely to end up in a life of crime, hurting others in the process

Oh, oh, your turn! Prove that making others suffer is good

Pointless fucking objectivism.

Actually what I am arguing is quite different from both the philosophical and Ayn Rand ideas of objectivism.


Seriously. Just no.
You're irritating the piss out of me.

Hmm...interesting that someone who I would expect to champion the cause of free-thought would be irritated when it is used to produce ideas foreign to their belief system.

What your entire argument boils down to is that everything is meaningless and there's no point in anything existing at all.

Take note that you are saying that from a position where you disagree with my arguments, accepting them would make life meaningless. If you really expect this to be an argument, could not a Christian argue the same thing about atheism?

If that's the case, though, why are you even posting?
Shouldn't you be hanging from a rafter by now?

The overarching style of my argument is a reductio ad absurdum, meaning I am demonstrating that the beliefs Suruk and like-minded people lead to the sort of reality I am putting forward. I do not agree with what I am arguing because I deny some of the starting premises.

They're all likely to lead to someone's suffering. Slavery should be easy unless you're the kind of guy that needs to be taught to breathe,

Why is suffering bad?

abstinence education doesn't work and seeing the kids haven't been taught shit about condoms or anything else, they stand a good chance of getting pregnant and/or get an STD or several.

Why does it matter to the ethics of the situation if our education works or not? Aren't morals dealing with what the world ought to be rather than with what it is?

Banning gay marriage deprives the faggots of the happiness it would have brought them and gives them the clear message we don't really like them despite anything we say to please our partners in the political circle-jerk.

Why is happiness good?

Banning abortion pretty much ends the good times of life by chaining them to the baby should people get pregnant against their will.

Why is 'chaining' someone to a baby against their will bad?

Not to mention the percentage of deaths in the coat hanger method you drive them to.

Why is death bad?

If they give the baby away, they still get to remember that for the rest of their lives instead of the memory of getting some pills that induce a period and some unpleasant cramping that follows.

Why are painful memories bad?

And the baby that's given away is likely to spend all his early life in the government sponsored trash bin where no one loves them and are more likely to end up in a life of crime, hurting others in the process

Why is not being loved bad? Why is a life of crime and hurting others bad?

Oh, oh, your turn! Prove that making others suffer is good

I never said or believed that suffering is good; I am not the one asserting a system of ethics, Surak and yourself are, so you need to justify it if you can. All you have done here is argue that those things are bad because they are not in accordance with something you think is good. You need to justify this higher good.

All you have done here is argue that those things are bad because they are not in accordance with something you think is good. You need to justify this higher good.

And all you have done here is pick apart pieces of text in an argumentative fashion, while at the same time completely avoiding taking any real position of your own. Pointless questions that solicit more circular conversation, which permits you to stave off falling inwards on your own house of rickety cards.

What is suffering? What is happiness? What is *blah, blah, blah...

State your own position, for once. Instead of defending others, put your own beliefs on the line. For once. I dare you.

Sky is blue
Why?
Because it's like space thing Idon'tknow
Why?
Because I haven't studied it
Why?
Because I don't have time for it
Why?
Because I work to support myself
Why?
Because I don't want to starve to death
Why?
Because death is bad
Why?
*slaps the fucking 3 year old in the face*

Yeah if you have to ask why increasing suffering isn't the desirable outcome in an ethics conversation, how about you go chew on some crayons instead of annoying the adults

This is a human issue. Humans agree that suffering is bad. Hence, I don't need to justify it on some grand scale because it does not involve anyone but humans and everyone it involves does in fact agree with me so we have a solid basis for arguing good and bad

Yeah yeah, psychos like inflicting suffering. They are not a part of the human society and are removed whenever caught so they are a non-factor

He is right, in a sense. I mean yes, if you just go with utter nihilism, yeah, there can't be any morality, nothing is real, and our ideas are just as valid as the christians.

But nothingness is infinite, and deitys are finite. So that means we're more likely right, if you want to argue probability.

You're not really adding anything FH... I kinda don't think you really mind though. I mean, we don't exist, and you can't prove it. SO really, you're just hallucinating. But you can't prove that.

The thing that everyone else is assuming is that something DOES exist, so thaat we can make it better, because the betterment of a situation is a valid goal, regardless of morality or lack thereof.

And all you have done here is pick apart pieces of text in an argumentative fashion

My apologies for having the audacity to actually hold to an argument that dares contradict an atheist. /sarcasm.

while at the same time completely avoiding taking any real position of your own. Pointless questions that solicit more circular conversation, which permits you to stave off falling inwards on your own house of rickety cards.

What is suffering? What is happiness? What is *blah, blah, blah...

State your own position, for once. Instead of defending others, put your own beliefs on the line. For once. I dare you.

My own beliefs are unrelated to the current discussion, and if they are false it does not demonstrate the truth of any alternatives. If you want to discuss me, feel free to start another thread.

Sky is blue
Why?
Because it's like space thing Idon'tknow
Why?
Because I haven't studied it
Why?
Because I don't have time for it
Why?
Because I work to support myself
Why?
Because I don't want to starve to death
Why?
Because death is bad
Why?
*slaps the fucking 3 year old in the face*

Yeah if you have to ask why increasing suffering isn't the desirable outcome in an ethics conversation, how about you go chew on some crayons instead of annoying the adults

Your attempts at mockery only demonstrate the depth of your ignorance. The idea of requiring justification for beliefs is the foundation of scepticism, and looking at justification for and the nature of moral beliefs is the topic of an entire branch of philosophy called meta-ethics. Look it up. This is not child's play.

This is a human issue. Humans agree that suffering is bad. Hence, I don't need to justify it on some grand scale because it does not involve anyone but humans and everyone it involves does in fact agree with me so we have a solid basis for arguing good and bad.

Yeah yeah, psychos like inflicting suffering. They are not a part of the human society and are removed whenever caught so they are a non-factor

1. While you claim that you are not trying to justify morals, you are in fact attempting to provide reasonable and adequate ground for their use, and this is the very definition of justification.

2. Here is the problem with arguing that what everyone agrees is moral should be taken to be moral: Moral statements contain two sections, a descriptive section and a normative section. Saying that all humans agree something is bad is descriptive, but since it has no normative component, then saying that all humans agree something is bad gives absolutely no reason to abstain from performing that bad action.

3. While most humans may agree that suffering is bad, many will argue that if there is a choice between a certain amount of suffering and the breach of a right or a duty, then suffering is the lesser evil. Meaning that your 'solid base' for arguing right and wrong will have zero effect on Christians who oppose/support all of those 'good'/'bad' things that Surak accused them of, as they don't accept the starting premises.

He is right, in a sense. I mean yes, if you just go with utter nihilism, yeah, there can't be any morality, nothing is real, and our ideas are just as valid as the christians.

Nihilism is the natural conclusion derived by combining logic and reason with scepticism, unless you draw arbitrary lines in the sand.

But nothingness is infinite, and deitys are finite. So that means we're more likely right, if you want to argue probability.

Actually, from a nihilistic perspective, probability is quite useless, and with good reason too. To calculate the probability of something requires that you know all the relevant details, which IIRC nihilism rules out.

You're not really adding anything FH... I kinda don't think you really mind though. I mean, we don't exist, and you can't prove it. SO really, you're just hallucinating. But you can't prove that.

As I said above,

1. I am not a nihilist.

2. The style of argument I am using is reductio ad absurdum, meaning I do not agree with my own conclusions because I choose to use different premises.

The thing that everyone else is assuming is that something DOES exist, so thaat we can make it better, because the betterment of a situation is a valid goal, regardless of morality or lack thereof.

Hmm, so you are going to gather together to ignore reason and scepticism because it challenges your unjustifiable delusions, this sounds almost familiar...

Regardless, this does not resolve the fundamental issue; different discourses have diametrically opposed viewpoints on what exactly 'better' means and how we should act for betterment, and if you throw away any hope of justifying either side then any arguments that your side is objectively correct are useless; and these arguments are something which people of all persuasions seem determined to make.

I would still be an atheist if it wasnt for that Goddamned ether.

My apologies for having the audacity to actually hold to an argument that dares contradict an atheist. /sarcasm.

Please, carry on. You clearly require a contradiction to be present in order to get your points across. Audacity be damned, as I'm sure the exercise for you is a fulfilling one. /sincerity


My own beliefs are unrelated to the current discussion, and if they are false it does not demonstrate the truth of any alternatives. If you want to discuss me, feel free to start another thread.

Not at all necessary. I could just as easily read through existing posts of yours in order to ascertain everything that you are not. Continue on with the nitpicking. That seems to be your strong point.

FFS FH, yes, none of us exist. Nihilism as you're taking it is the conclusion of overthinking logic and skepticism. And yeah, I'm going to draw the "arbirary line in the sand" and take A GIANT FUCKING LEAP by assuming that other things exist. You can keep fapping off to your

LOL NOTHING EXISTS U CAN'T STOP ME ATHEISTS WOO

Are you some christian who's trying to be like "omg u r teh retrad" or are you actually this pointlessly argumentative all the time?

Yeah, we're going to commit the logical fucking sin of trying to improve humanity. We do this because we dont' actually exist.

I mean, really. You admit you dont' agree with what you're saying. The only thing I could think of for why you're doing this is either because you just like trolling or because you're goign to pop out and be like "all of this nothingness is reallyd epressing, isn't it? BUT JESUS LOVES YOU!!"

Just stop feeding the troll, guys.

Justify your need for justification

What the hell are we even talking about anymore?

FFS FH, yes, none of us exist. Nihilism as you're taking it is the conclusion of overthinking logic and skepticism. And yeah, I'm going to draw the "arbirary line in the sand" and take A GIANT FUCKING LEAP by assuming that other things exist.

Of course you're naturally inclined as well as socialised to believe other things exist, so it doesn't seem to be as big of a leap as it is.

You know what the thing about arbitrary lines is? They are arbitrary. This means that if you criticise someone else for choosing to use a different arbitrary line, then your criticism is not based on logic or reason but personal preference.

All beliefs are lines in the sand. Do you see the huge implications of this or do I need to point them out?

You can keep fapping off to your

LOL NOTHING EXISTS U CAN'T STOP ME ATHEISTS WOO

Are you some christian who's trying to be like "omg u r teh retrad" or are you actually this pointlessly argumentative all the time?

As I have said plenty of times, I am neither a nihilist or a Christian.

Pointlessly argumentative? Because I am showing the delicacy of delusions? Why, you sound almost like a Christian...

Yeah, we're going to commit the logical fucking sin of trying to improve humanity. We do this because we dont' actually exist.

It's interesting that you are going to ignore logic when it contradicts your vision of what should be achieved. Once again, from reading the posts of some of the militant atheists in this thread, I would expect that to be a Christian trait?

I mean, really. You admit you dont' agree with what you're saying. The only thing I could think of for why you're doing this is either because you just like trolling or because you're goign to pop out and be like "all of this nothingness is reallyd epressing, isn't it? BUT JESUS LOVES YOU!!"

Just stop feeding the troll, guys.

The reason lies in the first three paragraphs I wrote in this post.

Justify your need for justification

That is something you need to do for yourself.

But consider how the implications of what you find will effect your relationship with religious ideas.

I really like the posts and ideas. :)