# Atheist Manifesto



## Musical Suicide (May 22, 2009)

Something For You To Think About, Before you sentance me to eternal hell, just because I dont belive in A God.


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]No. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: Most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We live in a world where all things, good and bad, are finally destroyed by change. Parents lose their children and children their parents. Husbands and wives are separated in an instant, never to meet again. Friends part company in haste, without knowing that it will be for the last time. This life, when surveyed with a broad glance, presents little more than a vast spectacle of loss. Most people in this world, however, imagine that there is a cure for this. If we live rightly-not necessarily ethically, but within the framework of certain ancient beliefs and stereotyped behaviors-we will get everything we want after we die. When our bodies finally fail us, we just shed our corporeal ballast and travel to a land where we are reunited with everyone we loved while alive. Of course, overly rational people and other rabble will be kept out of this happy place, and those who suspended their disbelief while alive will be free to enjoy themselves for all eternity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We live in a world of unimaginable surprises--from the fusion energy that lights the sun to the genetic and evolutionary consequences of this lights dancing for eons upon the Earth--and yet Paradise conforms to our most superficial concerns with all the fidelity of a Caribbean cruise. This is wondrously strange. If one didn't know better, one would think that man, in his fear of losing all that he loves, had created heaven, along with its gatekeeper God, in his own image.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Consider the destruction that Hurricane Katrina leveled on New Orleans. More than a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and nearly a million were displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely he heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: These poor people died talking to an imaginary friend.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm of biblical proportions would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina's path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn't have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. Nevertheless, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that 80% of Katrina's survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As Hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran: Their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence; their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God's grace.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world's suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is--and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]One wonders just how vast and gratuitous a catastrophe would have to be to shake the world's faith. The Holocaust did not do it. Neither did the genocide in Rwanda, even with machete-wielding priests among the perpetrators. Five hundred million people died of smallpox in the 20th Century, many of them infants. God's ways are, indeed, inscrutable. It seems that any fact, no matter how infelicitous, can be rendered compatible with religious faith. In matters of faith, we have kicked ourselves loose of the Earth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God's goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If he exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: The biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world's suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion--to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions and religious diversions of scarce resources--is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Nature of Belief 
According to several recent polls, 22% of Americans are certain that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years. Another 22% believe that he will probably do so. This is likely the same 44% who go to church once a week or more, who believe that God literally promised the land of Israel to the Jews and who want to stop teaching our children about the biological fact of evolution. As President Bush is well aware, believers of this sort constitute the most cohesive and motivated segment of the American electorate. Consequently, their views and prejudices now influence almost every decision of national importance. Political liberals seem to have drawn the wrong lesson from these developments and are now thumbing Scripture, wondering how best to ingratiate themselves to the legions of men and women in our country who vote largely on the basis of religious dogma. More than 50% of Americans have a "negative" or "highly negative" view of people who do not believe in God; 70% think it important for presidential candidates to be "strongly religious." Unreason is now ascendant in the United States--in our schools, in our courts and in each branch of the federal government. Only 28% of Americans believe in evolution; 68% believe in Satan. Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Although it is easy enough for smart people to criticize religious fundamentalism, something called "religious moderation" still enjoys immense prestige in our society, even in the ivory tower. This is ironic, as fundamentalists tend to make a more principled use of their brains than "moderates" do. While fundamentalists justify their religious beliefs with extraordinarily poor evidence and arguments, they at least they make an attempt at rational justification. Moderates, on the other hand, generally do nothing more than cite the good consequences of religious belief. Rather than say that they believe in God because certain biblical prophecies have come true, moderates will say that they believe in God because this belief "gives their lives meaning." When a tsunami killed a few hundred thousand people on the day after Christmas, fundamentalists readily interpreted this cataclysm as evidence of God's wrath. As it turns out, God was sending humanity another oblique message about the evils of abortion, idolatry and homosexuality. While morally obscene, this interpretation of events is actually reasonable, given certain (ludicrous) assumptions. Moderates, on the other hand, refuse to draw any conclusions whatsoever about God from his works. God remains a perfect mystery, a mere source of consolation that is compatible with the most desolating evil. In the face of disasters like the Asian tsunami, liberal piety is apt to produce the most unctuous and stupefying nonsense imaginable. And yet, men and women of goodwill naturally prefer such vacuities to the odious moralizing and prophesizing of true believers. Between catastrophes, it is surely a virtue of liberal theology that it emphasizes mercy over wrath. It is worth noting, however, that it is human mercy on display--not God's--when the bloated bodies of the dead are pulled from the sea. On days when thousands of children are simultaneously torn from their mothers' arms and casually drowned, liberal theology must stand revealed for what it is--the sheerest of mortal pretenses. Even the theology of wrath has more intellectual merit. If God exists, his will is not inscrutable. The only thing inscrutable in these terrible events is that so many neurologically healthy men and women can believe the unbelievable and think this the height of moral wisdom.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in God simply because this belief makes him happy, relieves his fear of death or gives his life meaning. The absurdity becomes obvious the moment we swap the notion of God for some other consoling proposition: Imagine, for instance, that a man wants to believe that there is a diamond buried somewhere in his yard that is the size of a refrigerator. No doubt it would feel uncommonly good to believe this. Just imagine what would happen if he then followed the example of religious moderates and maintained this belief along pragmatic lines: When asked why he thinks that there is a diamond in his yard that is thousands of times larger than any yet discovered, he says things like, "This belief gives my life meaning," or "My family and I enjoy digging for it on Sundays," or "I wouldn't want to live in a universe where there wasn't a diamond buried in my backyard that is the size of a refrigerator." Clearly these responses are inadequate. But they are worse than that. They are the responses of a madman or an idiot.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Here we can see why Pascal's wager, Kierkegaard's leap of faith and other epistemological Ponzi schemes won't do. To believe that God exists is to believe that one stands in some relation to his existence such that his existence is itself the reason for one's belief. There must be some causal connection, or an appearance thereof, between the fact in question and a person's acceptance of it. In this way, we can see that religious beliefs, to be beliefs about the way the world is, must be as evidentiary in spirit as any other. For all their sins against reason, religious fundamentalists understand this; moderates--almost by definition--do not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The incompatibility of reason and faith has been a self-evident feature of human cognition and public discourse for centuries. Either a person has good reasons for what he strongly believes or he does not. People of all creeds naturally recognize the primacy of reasons and resort to reasoning and evidence wherever they possibly can. When rational inquiry supports the creed it is always championed; when it poses a threat, it is derided; sometimes in the same sentence. Only when the evidence for a religious doctrine is thin or nonexistent, or there is compelling evidence against it, do its adherents invoke "faith." Otherwise, they simply cite the reasons for their beliefs (e.g. "the New Testament confirms Old Testament prophecy," "I saw the face of Jesus in a window," "We prayed, and our daughter's cancer went into remission"). Such reasons are generally inadequate, but they are better than no reasons at all. Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail. In a world that has been shattered by mutually incompatible religious beliefs, in a nation that is growing increasingly beholden to Iron Age conceptions of God, the end of history and the immortality of the soul, this lazy partitioning of our discourse into matters of reason and matters of faith is now unconscionable.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Faith and the Good Society 
People of faith regularly claim that atheism is responsible for some of the most appalling crimes of the 20th century. Although it is true that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were irreligious to varying degrees, they were not especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements were little more than litanies of delusion--delusions about race, economics, national identity, the march of history or the moral dangers of intellectualism. In many respects, religion was directly culpable even here. Consider the Holocaust: The anti-Semitism that built the Nazi crematoria brick by brick was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity. For centuries, religious Germans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretics and attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the faithful. While the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominately secular way, the religious demonization of the Jews of Europe continued. (The Vatican itself perpetuated the blood libel in its newspapers as late as 1914.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; to the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about specific secular ideologies. Needless to say, a rational argument against religious faith is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma. The problem that the atheist exposes is none other than the problem of dogma itself--of which every religion has more than its fair share. There is no society in recorded history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]While most Americans believe that getting rid of religion is an impossible goal, much of the developed world has already accomplished it. Any account of a "god gene" that causes the majority of Americans to helplessly organize their lives around ancient works of religious fiction must explain why so many inhabitants of other First World societies apparently lack such a gene. The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality--belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society's health.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Countries with high levels of atheism also are the most charitable in terms of giving foreign aid to the developing world. The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is also belied by other indices of charity. Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Religion as a Source of Violence 
One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the 21st century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns--about ethics, spiritual experience and the inevitability of human suffering--in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith. Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities--Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.--and these divisions have become a continuous source of human conflict. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews versus Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians versus Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians versus Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants versus Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims versus Hindus), Sudan (Muslims versus Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims versus Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims versus Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists versus Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims versus Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite versus Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians versus Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis versus Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In these places religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last 10 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing degree. Religion inspires violence in at least two senses: (1) People often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of the universe wants them to do it (the inevitable psychopathic corollary being that the act will ensure them an eternity of happiness after death). Examples of this sort of behavior are practically innumerable, jihadist suicide bombing being the most prominent. (2) Larger numbers of people are inclined toward religious conflict simply because their religion constitutes the core of their moral identities. One of the enduring pathologies of human culture is the tendency to raise children to fear and demonize other human beings on the basis of religion. Many religious conflicts that seem driven by terrestrial concerns, therefore, are religious in origin. (Just ask the Irish.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]These facts notwithstanding, religious moderates tend to imagine that human conflict is always reducible to a lack of education, to poverty or to political grievances. This is one of the many delusions of liberal piety. To dispel it, we need only reflect on the fact that the Sept. 11 hijackers were college educated and middle class and had no discernable history of political oppression. They did, however, spend an inordinate amount of time at their local mosque talking about the depravity of infidels and about the pleasures that await martyrs in Paradise. How many more architects and mechanical engineers must hit the wall at 400 miles an hour before we admit to ourselves that jihadist violence is not a matter of education, poverty or politics? The truth, astonishingly enough, is this: A person can be so well educated that he can build a nuclear bomb while still believing that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Such is the ease with which the human mind can be partitioned by faith, and such is the degree to which our intellectual discourse still patiently accommodates religious delusion. Only the atheist has observed what should now be obvious to every thinking human being: If we want to uproot the causes of religious violence we must uproot the false certainties of religion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why is religion such a potent source of human violence?
o Our religions are intrinsically incompatible with one another. Either Jesus rose from the dead and will be returning to Earth like a superhero or not; either the Koran is the infallible word of God or it isn't. Every religion makes explicit claims about the way the world is, and the sheer profusion of these incompatible claims creates an enduring basis for conflict.
o There is no other sphere of discourse in which human beings so fully articulate their differences from one another, or cast these differences in terms of everlasting rewards and punishments. Religion is the one endeavor in which us-them thinking achieves a transcendent significance. If a person really believes that calling God by the right name can spell the difference between eternal happiness and eternal suffering, then it becomes quite reasonable to treat heretics and unbelievers rather badly. It may even be reasonable to kill them. If a person thinks there is something that another person can say to his children that could put their souls in jeopardy for all eternity, then the heretic next door is actually far more dangerous than the child molester. The stakes of our religious differences are immeasurably higher than those born of mere tribalism, racism or politics.
o Religious faith is a conversation-stopper. Religion is only area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give evidence in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs often determine what they live for, what they will die for, and--all too often--what they will kill for. This is a problem, because when the stakes are high, human beings have a simple choice between conversation and violence. Only a fundamental willingness to be reasonable--to have our beliefs about the world revised by new evidence and new arguments--can guarantee that we will keep talking to one another. Certainty without evidence is necessarily divisive and dehumanizing. While there is no guarantee that rational people will always agree, the irrational are certain to be divided by their dogmas.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It seems profoundly unlikely that we will heal the divisions in our world simply by multiplying the opportunities for interfaith dialogue. The endgame for civilization cannot be mutual tolerance of patent irrationality. While all parties to liberal religious discourse have agreed to tread lightly over those points where their worldviews would otherwise collide, these very points remain perpetual sources of conflict for their coreligionists. Political correctness, therefore, does not offer an enduring basis for human cooperation. If religious war is ever to become unthinkable for us, in the way that slavery and cannibalism seem poised to, it will be a matter of our having dispensed with the dogma of faith.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]When we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith; when we have no reasons, or bad ones, we have lost our connection to the world and to one another. Atheism is nothing more than a commitment to the most basic standard of intellectual honesty: One's convictions should be proportional to one's evidence. Pretending to be certain when one isn't--indeed, pretending to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable--is both an intellectual and a moral failing. Only the atheist has realized this. The atheist is simply a person who has perceived the lies of religion and refused to make them his own. [/FONT]


----------



## Musical Suicide (May 22, 2009)

hahaha I love you weather you hate me or not. = )


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 23, 2009)

Musical Suicide said:


> hahaha I love you weather you hate me or not. = )


Isn't that the ultimate message of Religion?

As far as the existence of God as an ethereal being, that can not be answered. Either science has not the tools to detect God or there is no God in the sense that you speak of, and that others speak of.

Perhaps a better question for everyone to ask themselves is what is God.

For me, I can only respond that the attributes that the Judeo-Christian God claims for himself represents only one concept.

That single concept is of course Truth.

A look at the commandments can be applied to test this.

1. I am the Truth
2. Do not have any other truths ("other truths" = lies) before me
3. You shall not make yourself an idol ("lies")
4. You shall not mis-use the Truth (distort it or twist it/take it in vain)
5. Honor your father and mother (really has nothing to do with the truth)
6. You shall not murder (deny the truth of another human's existence)
7. You shall not commit adultery (deny the truth of another human's marriage)
8. You shall not steal (deny the truth of another's possession of property)
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (deny the truth at the expense of your neighbor)
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's belongings (You shall not have commit theft in your heart, and thus deny the truth of another's possession of their property in it.)

The only power on Earth that can be ignored only at one's own expense is the Truth.

Whether there is a intelligence behind the existence of the truth is beyond me... and not something that really matters, because it does not impact of the truth.


----------



## Musical Suicide (May 24, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> Isn't that the ultimate message of Religion?



Ummm.. no last I checked if i dont give my faith to god before i die, I go to hell or purgatory. If i denounce him its hell, if I'm gay its hell, along with the rest of "its" shopping list of regulations to rest easy. I wrote a song, and taped it and put it on youube... its title, "kill god" you should see all the comments and messages about how I'm going to hell to be raped for eternity, and forever live in pain, and watch my parents die, and suffer eternal misery just cause I wrote my feelings in a song. Thats why I'm against all organized religion. Cause they wont love me when life ends and for some reason their is a god and heaven and all that fairy tale, I will be sentanced to suffering cause i feel their is no reason to belive in fairy tales with no real proof, and science can proove all the dates wrong... or at least off. Thats why I truely can say I love everyone for who they are, no matter what, cause My relgion, (or lack of) will not come between their loved ones and peace, if ever plausible.


----------



## Musical Suicide (May 24, 2009)

and all power can be ignored and overthrow.. so fuck power.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 26, 2009)

Musical Suicide said:


> and all power can be ignored and overthrow.. so fuck power.


Those that deny the truth, tend to suffer for it.

Though if you look at the truth it has the power to bring down empires, especially tyrannical ones that rely upon misinformation.

For instance:

The Soviet Union was brought down when Eastern Europe's citizens learned that the quality of life in the United States was way higher than their's.

The People's Republic of China accepted the truth and is now the fastest growing economy in the world.


Then there's the United States that consistently ignores the Truth of humanity needing to be free, and taxes being the moral equivalent of involuntary servitude. It is a nation that is descending into the same Socialist Tyranny that Eastern Europe and the PRC just left.


The Truth is the ultimate power, and the only one that can't be overthrown, and the truth is that no individual has the right to dictate to another individual what they must and must not do, just as a single individual does not have the right to pursue any actions that will cause direct harm to others.

Society is the construct of voluntary co-operation between individuals.

Government is a group of individuals that take from society with out actually contributing anything.


----------



## Musical Suicide (May 26, 2009)

But whose idea Of truth are you looking at? Middle Class, Right Wing Christian truth?


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 26, 2009)

Musical Suicide said:


> But whose idea Of truth are you looking at? Middle Class, Right Wing Christian truth?


Strange, I didn't know morals gave a damn about class.

Not murdering, raping, killing, enslaving or stealing from your neighbors isn't alterable as far as class goes. Regardless of what fictional division you are in not doing any of those is just logical behavior.

Society is the voluntary cooperation of individuals built on trust, if you can not trust your neighbor not to try killing you then are you not going to either A. Avoid your neighbor, or B. Kill them first?

One only needs to take a look at the Middle East to see an example of where "society" has broken down as a result of the breaking of morality by either Nations (US Invasion of Iraq) or amongst Ethnicities (Iraqi Genocide of the Kurds, Iraq - Iran War, Judeo-Muslim Wars, Crusades.)

The entire history of that one region is filled with examples of what happens when people (either at the individual level) or people (at a group level) feel that they can not trust their neighbor not to try killing, raping, murdering, enslaving or stealing from them.


----------



## turtleblood (May 27, 2009)

what a great post! Musical Suicide, did you write that yourself or did it come from somewhere?

i like to use the following paradox to make the proselytizers stopand THINK for once:

hypothetical situation: there is a family of three - a mother, father, and son.
the mother and father are perfect in the eyes of god. they have not committed sin, and they deserve to rest in paradise eternally when they pass on.
the son, however, lives sinfully and denounces god, and deserves to live eternally in pain.

the family is all killed in a natural phenomena.

now, the mother and father go to heaven. they require all the things that would make them happy, and this includes having their son eternally nearby them, and for him also to be eternally happy. this is a thing god cannot refuse, because they deserve to be eternally happy.

two possible cases arrise:
1) send the son to hell as he deserves, and have an illusive replacement to keep the parents happy. this, however, means that heaven is a farse because it presents a false truth and is therefore misleading. heaven is therefore imperfect.
2) send the som to heaven as the parents deserve to have him. his soul cannot reside in two places at once, however, so he must reside only in heaven (now there are two more cases:
2)a. the son's soul rests happily and peacefully in heaven. therefore he does not receive punishment for his sins. this means that there is a 'back door' to heaven.
2)b. the son's soul is in heaven, but it feels pain inflicted as punishment. therefore heaven is imperfect, because no one should feel any pain in such a utopia.

the afterlife is mighty confusing.

i want to hear a real, foolproof way that this can work. come one, come all. none of them work. either there is a necessary illusion, or it cannot be possible. in any case an illusion is used for the solution, please accept this as a fatal error in the logic of a perfect heaven.

anyway, Musical Suicide's post reflected just about every one of the reason's i have ever agreed with in the bounds of the religious discussion. +rep !!!!


----------



## Musical Suicide (May 27, 2009)

Yeah I wrote this about a year ago on myspace as a blog. I made some movie a while ago with a shitty song I was playing. Just me and my brother fucking around with widows movie maker for the first time, anyways the song was called, kill god, and well, people didnt really like it. haha It was funny how all these "good christians" were just threating me, and wishing the worst of all hells on me and my family. Its quite funny, and absurd, but mostly just the epitome of religion in itself. "Be like me, like god tells you to, or parish in the worst of hells imaginable... haha So I put some good reasearch into it, and spent some time on it. Anyways, I totally agree, what comes when you die is one of the biggest mystery's which no side has any proof... thats why I think when you die, well fuck, you just die. Thats why there's no proof, cause there's nothing tio prove. It's awsome to think of reincarnation, or a heaven... and who knows it all could be true, no one knows. All I can say is if this "god" charachter exisits, and he thinks Me, thinking for myself and basing my belife's on what sources I have seen and experienced, is enough to sentance me to this "hell" well... fuck him. haha But like your paradox is what my parents and I have discussed before. My dad, is cathloic, and my mom is christian. My gradma was full time cathloic, prayed 4 hours everday for her whole life. The whole cathloic life, all day 24/7. Now is this gatekeeper gonna keep me out, which will not be what my family wants?? Or let me in this back door? Only time will tell... till then, I am open to all ideas and evidence. But as I go to work in the morning, as I walk down the city streets, as I visit the hospitals and welfare office's and jailhouses... is hard to belive there's a god.


----------



## turtleblood (May 28, 2009)

that is so completely similar to what i have thought about. how could any entity that was ever once considered 'loving' invoke so much eternal evil upon people that have simply failed to live up to an impossible standard? that is a cruel fellow, and if it is true, then FUCK THAT, i don't WANT to be part of such an agenda. it makes no sense.

keep the peace. keep this thread going! does anyone else have conflicting thoughts to share?


----------



## Christafari (May 29, 2009)

Hasn't the Christian religion already been proven false? Evolution has been proven, the earth has been proven to be over 6000 years old.If the bible is disproven, therefore God(in the Christian faith) has been disproven. s. As for the belief in GOD as an entity, that is still up for debate. I do not choose a side, on weather I believe or don't believe in God, I (and everyone else on the earth) simply do not know. There may be a God, but we can be certain that if he does exist, he is not a particular religion ,nor did he send profits to spread religious word, nor would he feel the need to be worshiped.


----------



## Mcgician (May 29, 2009)

Having the arrogance to say God doesn't exist is idiotic. To do so relies as much on faith as a person "of faith". Period.


----------



## Mcgician (May 29, 2009)

Christafari said:


> Hasn't the Christian religion already been proven false?


 NO.



The oversimplistic reasoning around here sometimes is unbelievable!


----------



## Musical Suicide (May 30, 2009)

Mcgician said:


> NO.
> 
> 
> 
> The oversimplistic reasoning around here sometimes is unbelievable!


care to elaborate??


----------



## Hayduke (May 30, 2009)

Mcgician said:


> Having the arrogance to say God doesn't exist is idiotic. To do so relies as much on faith as a person "of faith". Period.


Am I idiotic for having the faith and arrogance enough to dare say that Unicorns do not exist?


----------



## bicycle racer (May 31, 2009)

i think die hard religious people and die hard atheists are both at a loss and equally confused in there thinking.


----------



## Hayduke (May 31, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> i think die hard religious people and die hard atheists are both at a loss and equally confused in there thinking.


Wait a minute...let me get this straight....whoa....where am I?


----------



## PadawanBater (May 31, 2009)

> what a great post! Musical Suicide, did you write that yourself or did it come from somewhere?
> 
> i like to use the following paradox to make the proselytizers stopand THINK for once:
> 
> ...


I've been asking the same shit for atleast a year man! Almost the exact same question, how could the rest of the family in heaven be content and happy without another member of their family!? This is a complete paradox.

So anyway, the answers I get are just like any other Christian answering an atheists questions... dodge and screen or answer something you didn't even ask... usually goes something like this;

"well, in heaven, it's different, you don't have a 'family' kind of situation, you're not physically connected to your other family members through blood like you were on earth, so you won't feel any pain from missing them"

... yep, you read it right! I know! They think that passes for a real answer... 

Logic/Reason is not in some of these peoples tool box...


----------



## Brazko (May 31, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> i think die hard religious people and die hard atheists are both at a loss and equally confused in there thinking.


This is One of the most Profound Statements, as well as others, you have made B Racer.......

Both in the SAme Boat, Paddling in opposite directions....

Eventually, both will come to the Conclusion that they must Jump in the WAter......


----------



## GrowTech (May 31, 2009)

If being gay means going to hell, then what becomes of those who sodomize choir boys?


----------



## Brazko (May 31, 2009)

GrowTech said:


> If being gay means going to hell, then what becomes of those who sodomize choir boys?


The same thing, Nothing, except for the Hell they have Personally Created for themselves......Which is Pure Fantasy & yet Very Real


----------



## Mindmelted (May 31, 2009)

To Follow by Faith alone is
to Follow Blindly

Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Akita420 (May 31, 2009)

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world's suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is--and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.

great post


----------



## Musical Suicide (May 31, 2009)

Akita420 said:


> Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world's suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is--and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.
> 
> great post


dido kiddo!! hehe


----------



## Hayduke (May 31, 2009)

GrowTech said:


> If being gay means going to hell, then what becomes of those who sodomize choir boys?


They sit at the right hand of god, as long as they say sorry.


----------



## turtleblood (May 31, 2009)

Akita420 said:


> Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world's suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, _*the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is*_--and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.


Exactly.

When two people pray against or opposite to each other and only one wins, should the winner not see himself as the favorite of God? And upon losing, should the loser not recount his faith in God if he is to fail or to be ignored so blatantly?


----------



## Reddragon1986 (Jun 1, 2009)

Great first post musical, +rep. Kinda makes me feel sad nearly the majority of the worlds population allow themselves to be strung up on puppet strings, or in most cases have no say, and are brought up with walt disney beliefs. I dont mean to sound evil, but if there is this 'paradise' awaiting 'believers' is true, then wouldn't a termial illness be a blessing? Surely they could go to heaven sooner and the 'test' (by which i mean reality/life) would be shortened.

Just my thinkings, i think the bilble was long ago a fansinating bedtime story, then one day someone believed these events were truth, these people were the starting motor of the longest running engine of false hope and suffering.


----------



## Reddragon1986 (Jun 1, 2009)

Religion is clearly a sign of mental health problems. I think Man has always felt safer believing they are sumwhat controlled and have a certain 'path' of which to live their lives.


----------



## turtleblood (Jun 1, 2009)

Reddragon1986 said:


> I think Man has always felt safer believing they are sumwhat controlled and have a certain 'path' of which to live their lives.


It gives them room for error. They just shrug it off, believing it is somehow written in the stars.


----------



## skiskate (Jun 3, 2009)

You sure you wrote that in a blog last year? I googled it with 14000 results and posts from 2004. 

I dont consider myself an atheist or a religious person. I am ME. And nobody governs me, I have my own beliefs and am not bothered by what others believe. However calling myself an atheist would simply be grouping myself with a whole nother group of people, same as joining a religion.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 3, 2009)

skiskate said:


> calling myself an atheist would simply be grouping myself with a whole nother group of people, same as joining a religion.


Yeah...just without all the angry unicorns and brush fires.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 4, 2009)

turtleblood said:


> i want to hear a real, foolproof way that this can work. come one, come all. none of them work.


According to your logic, memory is an illusion. It is not real. It is not tangible. It is just a memory. Presuming heaven works outside of the realm of the physical universe, a soulless version of the son is usable. Perception is subject to illusion no doubt... but if the son is with them, is it an illusion? There are so many better things to address in so far as the heaven concept is concerned. Being in two places at once doesn't seem like a feat too difficult for an omnipotent being to muster.



Christafari said:


> Hasn't the Christian religion already been proven false? Evolution has been proven,


There has been evidence to support the theory, but it is just a theory. Evolution has not been "proven". Certainly not ours.



Christafari said:


> the earth has been proven to be over 6000 years old.


Two problems here... 

First, radiometric dating is more art than science... which is why if you give two teams two samples from the same object, you will almost certainly get two different results. Hardly an exact science. Were you aware that carbon dating can only be accurate to 4,700 years due to the nucleic half-life of c-14? 

I view carbon dating much like I view breathalizing. If you have to keep doing it to get the result you are expecting... it isn't science.

Btw... how long is a day to God? Just assuming it is a 24 hour period? All calculations of 6k years presumes that God measures time by the rotation of the earth (which did not yet exist) around the sun (which did not yet exist). Speaking of paradoxes... how do you use a series of events to determine the time it takes to create the subjects of the series of events? 



turtleblood said:


> If the bible is disproven, therefore God(in the Christian faith) has been disproven. s. As for the belief in GOD as an entity, that is still up for debate. I do not choose a side, on weather I believe or don't believe in God, I (and everyone else on the earth) simply do not know. There may be a God, but we can be certain that if he does exist, he is not a particular religion ,nor did he send profits to spread religious word, nor would he feel the need to be worshiped.


Holy logical non-sequiturs batman...

1. If the bible were "disproven", it has nothing to do with God, but man. The failure of man to report the message accurately does not affect the message, nor the issuer.

2. We cannot be certain about anything concerning an unfathomable intelligence. That is why we call it unfathomable. 

3. God is not "a religion". 

4. Perhaps the need to be worshipped comes not from a sense of lonliness or domination, or whateve narcisistic need you infer, but for the benefit of the worshipers. My dog doesn't have to understand why he must obey my commands... but it is in his best interest to, because I know more than him. I do not require that the dog understand why I am calling it away from the road, it must simply do it. The more loyal the dog is, the easier it is for me to protect it.




skiskate said:


> You sure you wrote that in a blog last year? I googled it with 14000 results and posts from 2004.


Oh snap.


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 4, 2009)

Unless musical suicide is author Sam Harris, he is full of shit.


----------



## turtleblood (Jun 4, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Unless musical suicide is author Sam Harris, he is full of shit.


The jig is up, my friend.

Oh crap... I just remembered learning that this phrase originated in the south when blacks were still being hung... I'm not racist I promise!


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 4, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> According to your logic, memory is an illusion. It is not real. It is not tangible. It is just a memory. [...]Being in two places at once doesn't seem like a feat too difficult for an omnipotent being to muster.


Memory is a combination of truth and the crap your brain fills in the gaps with...more illusion the further you get from the actual event. And as long as you are going to believe in stuff that is not there...might as well see double...I bet Unicorns could be in two places at once, if they really wanted to that is.



what... huh? said:


> There has been evidence to support the theory, but it is just a theory. Evolution has not been "proven". Certainly not ours.


I really wish _christians_ would put down the best selling novel of all time and pick up a damn dictionary, and quit using definitions 7 and 8 when speaking of "theory"....IT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Theory (def #1 and closer to how science would define) 1. A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena; Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Definition(s) #7:Contemplation or speculation, and the last #8 under hypothetical or ideal conditions; theoretically 

This word is so misused (thanks) that webster had to add extra info:

-syn Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion.

_*A theory in technical use is more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: Einstein's Theory of Relativity.*_



what... huh? said:


> Two problems here...
> 
> First, radiometric dating is more art than science... which is why if you give two teams two samples from the same object, you will almost certainly get two different results. Hardly an exact science. Were you aware that carbon dating can only be accurate to 4,700 years due to the nucleic half-life of c-14?
> 
> I view carbon dating much like I view breathalizing. If you have to keep doing it to get the result you are expecting... it isn't science.


Although the "big picture" biology paints is a beautiful mosaic...

Other isotopes of carbon and other elements with know half lives are used. 

As for the different results...the samples were different, even if they were the same. Anytime you are isolating a compound, much less a decomposing isotope, it is very difficult to be exact (here again the laypersons idea of precision and accuracy has very little to do with science) It is a skill that some are better at than others. 

Another thing that the layperson does not get is that the vast majority of scientists (with the notable exception of the cooks who put out the ID video) do not have some evil agenda to manipulate public policy. The truth as the data presents itself, is what it is, nothing more. A scientists job is to collect and analyze the data objectively (this too is a skill) and report what is found...the mass of this trial and error is tested and re tested in hope of proving it wrong...without doing so we are left with very little...like #7 & 8. It is through this scrutinization (faithless I will add) over lifetimes that eventually something has the possibility of being elevated to the ranks of THEORY! The only thing beyond that is LAW...like gravity.



what... huh? said:


> 1. If the bible were "disproven", it has nothing to do with God, but man. The failure of man to report the message accurately does not affect the message, nor the issuer.
> 
> 2. We cannot be certain about anything concerning an unfathomable intelligence. That is why we call it unfathomable.
> 
> ...


#1 from above: NO the failure of man to report the message accurately...makes the message inaccurate.

#2 Unicorns and Leprechauns...are unfathomable

#3 No god is not a religion...It is something very good and loving, only spelled backwards.

#4 having a trained dog is not (only) about protecting it...it is about controlling it and getting it to do what you want, when you want, and how you want it done....without question. Sheeple take longer to train...I prefer the Dog.


----------



## Reddragon1986 (Jun 4, 2009)

If god truly wanted to be worshiped by millions, surely he must have an a huge ego, someone that powerful and almighty needs his balls licking everyday? Then kills inocent people, I dont think so. Sounds like a korean leader to me.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 5, 2009)

I can't + Rep you Hayduke, but your post definitely deserves it!

Thanks for taking the time to respond to that, I was about to do the same thing! Same old shit, different author, different forum..

The stuff he said about carbon dating is ridiculous! Lay off the Kent Hovind lectures bro!


----------



## Brazko (Jun 5, 2009)

There's a difference in something being unfathomable and not existing, whereas Unicorns and Lepecorns don't exist but are very much fathomable, according to the Theory of evolution......... Somebody being able to put their foot up their own Ass is closer to being unfathomable, but yet, its a frequent recurring fathom....

May the Force be With You, 4 life  mfmf


----------



## MediMary (Jun 5, 2009)

good read musical..to bad you lied about writing it...

peace n luvv



hom36rown said:


> Unless musical suicide is author Sam Harris, he is full of shit.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 5, 2009)

Brazko said:


> There's a difference in something being unfathomable and not existing, whereas Unicorns and Lepecorns don't exist but are very much fathomable, according to the Theory of evolution......... Somebody being able to put their foot up their own Ass is closer to being unfathomable, but yet, its a frequent recurring fathom....
> 
> May the Force be With You, 4 life  mfmf


Hmmm. I have to admit to a little confusion here. You make an excellent case for the existence of unicorns and leprechauns...however a little bird tells me you are some how trying to make the case for the imaginary angry magician of life...I too wish you all of the good forces, 4 life with a generous helping of ...but again (still?) I am confused....what does your "mfmf" stand for?

And what people do with their feet is of no concern of mine, so long as it is their own 'Ass" that is involved...live and let live, or die; to each their own.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 5, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Hmmm. I have to admit to a little confusion here. You make an excellent case for the existence of unicorns and leprechauns...however a little bird tells me you are some how trying to make the case for the imaginary angry magician of life...I too wish you all of the good forces, 4 life with a generous helping of ...but again (still?) I am confused....what does your "mfmf" stand for?
> 
> And what people do with their feet is of no concern of mine, so long as it is their own 'Ass" that is involved...live and let live, or die; to each their own.


Naww, Dukee, I make a case for God, not Space gawd... the almost not present G

That angry Maggicktion belongs to, well.........YOU, and everyone else, Christian/Atheist alike that chooses to live their life secluded/enslaved to that way of thought......

It's like telling your kids about sex using the birds and the bees analogy..... Now fully grown adults, they are observing birds and bees to somehow better their sex lives, 

The Self Foot up the Ass was meant to explain my thoughts of what unfathomable would be (some1 being able to do that is pretty unfathomable), no Pun intended, but yeah I think Musical SueAside did so by saying he wrote that Manifesto....., personally I didn't Care, but obviously somebody else did.....

Glad that you do understand the Theory of Evolution, I didn't want to give a scenario of how those beings could exist today!!

mfmf....., That's nothing Bro', It's from an 90's Hip/Hop group 2nd album Magnum Force, Heltah Skelta: Rock & Ruck  They always would say and May the Force be with You for liiiiiiiiiffe, magnum force mutha fuckas.....throughout various songs & skits on the album,

We gonna Rock the World, if Not Mutha Ruckya!!

And you say live and let live, or die; 2 each his own

Well I say...Live and let live then we all die , its' not an option, only when its made 1 

Peaches


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 5, 2009)

Brazko said:


> It's like telling your kids about sex using the birds and the bees analogy..... Now fully grown adults, they are observing birds and bees to somehow better their sex lives,


Thanks for the explanations. That is why we have been doing a disservice to children for generations. Using the church to try to scare morality into them so parents could focus on their lawn, all the while half-heartedly believing...for a while. It's actually like telling kids there is a Santa, they eventually learn that they cannot trust their parents...what a cruel joke. 

Children should be told the truth. Tell them what you know, what you have seen, what is real and tangible. Children need no help with imagination.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 5, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Thanks for the explanations. That is why we have been doing a disservice to children for generations. Using the church to try to scare morality into them so parents could focus on their lawn, all the while half-heartedly believing...for a while. It's actually like telling kids there is a Santa, they eventually learn that they cannot trust their parents...what a cruel joke.
> 
> Children should be told the truth. Tell them what you know, what you have seen, what is real and tangible. Children need no help with imagination.


I agree, tell your children the truth about the world and people.. It was a disservice to me, for sure. It does become a cruel joke, all about selfish Control. But I always see the bright side of things as well, it helped me to see and understand people clearly, no matter the relation are bond, we are all just people. I was further enlightened by my disservice...


----------



## 420forever1289 (Jun 5, 2009)

Musical Suicide said:


> Something For You To Think About, Before you sentance me to eternal hell, just because I dont belive in A God.
> 
> 
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?[/FONT]
> ...


 
hey im athiest and more power to u for seeing clearly........but man....talk about over doing it...... i got bout 1/3 way through 1st paragraph and said holy shit...... but again as a athiest a can see wat ur geting at..... although from what i read it seems like u just dont want to believe because it looks so bad.......anyways ...... kudos for having the nuts to post it


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 5, 2009)

i feel this manifesto is poorly written and not very intellectual in nature the effort was there but no substence. i feel as sorry for these people who are impressed with this as i feel sorry for religious nuts who cant see past there childhood learnings. the difference is atheists leave others alone where as most religious people do not. but both are caught in the same human problem of feeling there absolutely right and others of differing opinions are absolutely wrong. in that way they are not very different from religious zealots. in an abstract way you become to some extent what you hate if you think in a narrow way on either side of the spectrum. as with most human arguments the truth is in between or in the grey area.


----------



## bigwheel (Jun 5, 2009)

Ps 14:1 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 5, 2009)

bigwheel said:


> Ps 14:1 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.


None of that stuff matter to an atheist man. 

But another side note; This same type of stuff reminds me of BillO the clown on Fox, how he's constantly upping his ratings on his show every 15 minutes, the guy goes on and on about how Fox beat out the other channels, how Fox is the greatest news station of all time, etc... I got news for BillO, if you have to constantly remind your viewers your shit doesn't stink, chances are they've already gotten used to it anyway. Same shit goes for religion and this retarded passage that was designed (very uncreatively and unintelligently I might add) to emotionally stimulate anyone, problem with that is 2000 years of dogma, survitude and slavery can do one good thing for the smart percentage of humanity...

...remind us all it's BULLSHIT.


----------



## 420forever1289 (Jun 5, 2009)

also .....that is why they say were given the free will so we have to prove ourselves.... thats why lucifer got all pissy... they werent givin the same free will and that is why we are higher in "god"s eyes because we fuck up......because we kill ourselves......because we rape our selves..... because the ones who "make it" all they had to do was be decent ppl......and most u people who say ur athiest are afraid that u urself are going to hell......and if u dont believe it wont happen.......right????


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 5, 2009)

420forever1289 said:


> also .....that is why they say were given the free will so we have to prove ourselves.... thats why lucifer got all pissy... they werent givin the same free will and that is why we are higher in "god"s eyes because we fuck up......because we kill ourselves......because we rape our selves..... because the ones who "make it" all they had to do was be decent ppl......and most u people who say ur athiest are afraid that u urself are going to hell......and if u dont believe it wont happen.......right????


Bro, atheists do not believe in God, heaven, hell... none of that shit. Saying an atheist is scared of hell is like saying atheists are afraid of leprechauns. Do you see how much sense that makes? 

Tell me, why would I be afraid of something I do not believe exists and how would that even be possible?


----------



## hahahahahaha (Jun 5, 2009)

woot woot athiest threeeeaad 

personally ive been athiest since i could think for myself, ive never went to church 

i believe in the mind, and therefor spirituality 

but..

i dont believe there is some "greater force" that controls all or has created all that does

i believe that the mind formed after billions of years in the small speck of the vastness of space we know as earth

im 100% positive that christians (and other faiths) use hell the control the people, and those who do not understand athiests
im 10000% positive that religious people envy atheists because they do not need a false god to understand their own world 

and therefore hate them and demean them

i mean, make that smart people look stupid because THEY'RE stupid?
perfect plan right?

anywho soory if this is tl;dr im still a little high


----------



## 420forever1289 (Jun 5, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Bro, atheists do not believe in God, heaven, hell... none of that shit. Saying an atheist is scared of hell is like saying atheists are afraid of leprechauns. Do you see how much sense that makes?
> 
> Tell me, why would I be afraid of something I do not believe exists and how would that even be possible?


 
no no no.....u dont get wat im sayin..... alot of ppl say they are because they just dont want to believe.... most ppl that tell u they are are ppl that christians would say are goin to hell already....and as a relief they pull the ignorance card and say o no there cant be cus this world is so bad...... what god would make this...... but no one made it but us.........but anyway......well all find out....in time


----------



## 420forever1289 (Jun 5, 2009)

hahahahahaha said:


> woot woot athiest threeeeaad
> 
> 
> 
> im 100% positive that christians (and other faiths) use hell the control the people,


 

yes.... in fact the devil and hell werent added into the bible untill the new testement so ppl would go to church more....it was like goin to the movis to see a scary movie.... they went to church and learned about this scary place called hell where all ur fears come true and a man with tights and a red cape pokes u with a stick all day


----------



## CaptnJack (Jun 6, 2009)

turtleblood said:


> what a great post! Musical Suicide, did you write that yourself or did it come from somewhere?
> 
> i like to use the following paradox to make the proselytizers stopand THINK for once:
> 
> ...


has everything to do with how old the son is, and what denomination of Christianity you are talking about.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 6, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Bro, atheists do not believe in God, heaven, hell... none of that shit. Saying an atheist is scared of hell is like saying atheists are afraid of leprechauns. Do you see how much sense that makes?
> 
> Tell me, why would I be afraid of something I do not believe exists and how would that even be possible?


El Chupacabra scares the hell out of me.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 6, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> El Chupacabra scares the hell out of me.


 
I think you're just messin' around, but in any case, do you think that thing actually exists? If you don't, why would you be afraid of it? 

...to be honest, I'd be a lot more scared of the God of the Bible than satan. I think we'd get along quite nicely.


----------



## bigwheel (Jun 6, 2009)

Wrongo about hell. Be the same concept as a person on PCP convincing themselves they don't have a backyard. If they open the back door and walk out they will be there despite their belief or lack thereof. Actually there is not such thing as an "atheist." Until a person can prove they have exlored every nook and cranny of the Universe without finding God or a reasonable Facimile thereof...they can't go shooting off their mouths about there being no God. So..as deep into unbelief a devil dawg heathern commie liberal democrat can sink is being an "agnostic" which can be easily defined as: Somebody who don't know what they believe and are too lazy to find out.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 6, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I think you're just messin' around, but in any case, do you think that thing actually exists? If you don't, why would you be afraid of it?
> 
> ...to be honest, I'd be a lot more scared of the God of the Bible than satan. I think we'd get along quite nicely.


yeah I am just messing around. Though their is at least limited evidence of the goat sucker, though some is faked and some is from bats, it is as possible as a Yeti, but nobody sees these things on grilled cheese or in stains on walls.



bigwheel said:


> Until a person can prove they have exlored every nook and cranny of the Universe without finding God or a reasonable Facimile thereof...they can't go shooting off their mouths about there being no God.


Why is god hiding from us?


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 6, 2009)

bigwheel said:


> Wrongo about hell. Be the same concept as a person on PCP convincing themselves they don't have a backyard. If they open the back door and walk out they will be there despite their belief or lack thereof. Actually there is not such thing as an "atheist." Until a person can prove they have exlored every nook and cranny of the Universe without finding God or a reasonable Facimile thereof...they can't go shooting off their mouths about there being no God. So..as deep into unbelief a devil dawg heathern commie liberal democrat can sink is being an "agnostic" which can be easily defined as: Somebody who don't know what they believe and are too lazy to find out.


By your logic one can't not believe in the magic spaghetti monster either.


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 6, 2009)

So an agnotstic is lazy, otherwise they would realize they couldnt disprove god, and therefore must believe in him...retarded


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 6, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> So an agnotstic is lazy, otherwise they would realize they couldnt disprove god, and therefore must believe in him...retarded


 
lmfao, I was thinking the same thing man. I think it's kind of interesting that the people who say things like that can't see how easily the logic can fall apart when you insert _____ for God...

You, the believer, is the one making the claim that the God of the bible exists. Therefor it's your responsibility to PROVE he exists with evidence before it would be a rational belief. It's not up to us to go search every single inch of the universe to be sure that God does not exist in any of it... don't you guys say God is "outside space and time" anyway...? Meaning if it did exist, it would be outside the universe we occupy.

So I guess by using your flawed logic, God does not exist, as he is not within our universe. 

Also, every single human being is born ATHEIST, it takes years of indoctrination to become a believer.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 6, 2009)

wow i think bigwheels statement was one of the most batshit crazy responses i have ever heard on riu it was angry hateful and at the same time made no sense in any way. i normally would retort but in some cases why bother hilarious +rep for making me laugh.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 6, 2009)

whats a devil dog heathern commie liberal democrat anyways its not important i got a good laugh on this one.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 6, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> whats a devil dog heathern commie liberal democrat anyways its not important i got a good laugh on this one.


lol, I guess anyone who doesn't fall in line like a good little Christian...


----------



## turtleblood (Jun 7, 2009)

Hahaha. There is so much crazy shit going on in here I am glad there are other people in here to combat the non-logic.



CaptnJack said:


> has everything to do with how old the son is, and what denomination of Christianity you are talking about.


Are you trying to say that under a certain set of conditions, this scenario could play out logically? The only way this could work would be if the religion allowed for an error in its own judgement, in which case the age of the son never mattered at all.


----------



## 420forever1289 (Jun 7, 2009)

turtleblood said:


> Hahaha. There is so much crazy shit going on in here I am glad there are other people in here to combat the non-logic.
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that under a certain set of conditions, this scenario could play out logically? The only way this could work would be if the religion allowed for an error in its own judgement, in which case the age of the son never mattered at all.


 
like he said if the son was young the christians believed that the soul was still pure in "gods" eyes because hes so young he doesnt know what hes done.. ....but that only goes to like age 10


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 7, 2009)

turtleblood said:


> Hahaha. There is so much crazy shit going on in here I am glad there are other people in here to combat the non-logic.
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that under a certain set of conditions, this scenario could play out logically? The only way this could work would be if the religion allowed for an error in its own judgement, in which case the age of the son never mattered at all.


Sorry, that original post was too crazy for me to even read past the first couple of sentences...

As I feel that the root of all ills, social and environmental, is overpopulation.
I propose a mass and immediate auto-rapturization...a real test of faith...not words and pop culture/tattoo influence window stickers claiming not to be of this world. Real Faith!

I know the excuse will be proposed about how that would be a sin...though christians wear the sinner label with pride...why try not to sin? I guess they can't help it. So Hayseuss died for your sins, god will understand. 

Now Reverend Jones prepared a special Communion, and my local Heavens' gate caught the Hale Bop Comet Express after a nice chocolate pudding (please do not use the bomb vest, the only virgins are underage) Now I appreciate the holy "synbolism" (originally a typo, but it works) used by brother Jimbo, and maybe the HG'ers were flying coach with no snack, but I propose a method of (mass) Auto-Rapturization that will kill...well bad cliché, but one problem with this removal of the good from the filth of the planet faith could not save, would be the immediate loss of witnesses to convert. HOWEVER! fear not ye multitude! For I have a plan...Angels decending from on high. Could you imagine they show of faith, the power of such an act, millions of christians jumping from the nearest height...whole congregations lined up on bridges, church steeples, vista points. It would be truly inspirational.

Now while this will move millions to possibly join the multitude...I may have to skip out on all the fun...wouldn't want to ruin heaven. Leave this wasteland of a planet, that you never had any motivation to take care of...god will fix it, plus just a worthless bus stop to your final destination.

I do think this might inspire a change in my ideology as now supply and demand economics will work just fine. Lots of supply, next to no demand, open space, clean air, clean water...Heaven...on Earth where it was always meant to be.

Of course I am kidding (a little)...But listen up you catholics, mormons, latin americans, and anti-abortionist murderers...STOP F'ING BREEDING!!!! It is not a miracle of god it is a parasite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I should have smoked before writing this, I will now...Happy Sabbath...Shalom!


----------



## turtleblood (Jun 8, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Of course I am kidding (a little)...But listen up you catholics, mormons, latin americans, and anti-abortionist murderers...STOP F'ING BREEDING!!!! It is not a miracle of god it is a parasite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Maybe I should have smoked before writing this, I will now...Happy Sabbath...Shalom


You mean you didn't smoke before writing that? Maybe I'm still high from last night... but man you got me confused.

I agree with the overpopulation bit. There are way too many of us. Which gets me thinking...
There should be a study done (if it hasn't been done already) to find out how many people the world could truly sustain with ideal conditions. What I mean is a decent standard of living, low infant mortality, little to zero homelessness, and zero starvation. I am also talking about the extremely wealthy giving up some of their wealth in order to support others in the world. Do we currently have the capacity to raise 6 billion people? What would the ideal and STABLE population of the planet be? This would yield some very interesting results.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 8, 2009)

were way way over that limit and have been for decades. 6bill i think is not a number in which quality of living can be good for all.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 8, 2009)

turtleblood said:


> You mean you didn't smoke before writing that? Maybe I'm still high from last night... but man you got me confused.


I am way more likely to condone a voluntary genocide when not medicated. I may have still been a little high from the night before...but the crazy never seems to go away.


turtleblood said:


> I agree with the overpopulation bit. There are way too many of us. Which gets me thinking...
> There should be a study done (if it hasn't been done already) to find out how many people the world could truly sustain with ideal conditions. What I mean is a decent standard of living, low infant mortality, little to zero homelessness, and zero starvation. I am also talking about the extremely wealthy giving up some of their wealth in order to support others in the world. Do we currently have the capacity to raise 6 billion people? What would the ideal and STABLE population of the planet be? This would yield some very interesting results.





bicycle racer said:


> were way way over that limit and have been for decades. 6bill i think is not a number in which quality of living can be good for all.


In Ecology it is the carrying capacity (K) of what ever hierarchy of habitat...for humans it is Earth. It is based on things like available fresh water and farmable land. It seems like the estimate was between 6-10 billion, and that it had likely already been exceeded. The fossil fuel based agriculture and desalination are good indicators that (K) has been exceeded now for many years, and technology is artificially and temporarily propping up the whole shebang.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 9, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> I am way more likely to condone a voluntary genocide when not medicated. I may have still been a little high from the night before...but the crazy never seems to go away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With out technology the population would probably still be in the hundreds of millions, maybe...

With out technology we'd all be in the stone age. So much for comfortable life style...

Then there's infant mortality, and the diseases that we no longer hear of. Whooping Cough, Typhoid Fever, Tuberculosis, Small Pox, whatever it was that FDR had, Measles, Mumps and Rubellum.

Technology is the greatest thing on Earth. 

The only thing the lack of space on Earth says to me is that it is time for humanity to leave Earth.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 9, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> With out technology the population would probably still be in the hundreds of millions, maybe...
> 
> With out technology we'd all be in the stone age. So much for comfortable life style...


about the population...could be. As for the stone age....we have had thousands of years between then and the Industrial Revolution.



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Then there's infant mortality, and the diseases that we no longer hear of. Whooping Cough, Typhoid Fever, Tuberculosis, Small Pox, whatever it was that FDR had, Measles, Mumps and Rubellum.


Ahhh...infant mortality, what a sweet sound. Small pox (and I suspect others) was cured by very simple science...observation of an inquisitive mind...and a non hypodermic needle.

These things have been co-related with humans for eons. Their removal is the same as the removal of predators from a predator-prey system....Starving, genetically weak elk...or the Jackson Wyoming National Elk Soup Kitchen....Deer on the dole.



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Technology is the greatest thing on Earth.


Well this is the line we have been fed, and happily have embraced, and if you have petroleum holdings...finding all sorts of ways to re-package the waste byproducts into something which a value can be created....well yeah it is pretty great.

Consider how much people are working...multiple jobs and piles of debt to not really get ahead, and to have to make food choices based on what is left over after paying the bills. Unless you grow your own or buy organic, even eating vegetarian, you get an unhealthy dose of technology with nearly every bite. Gee maybe if we spray carcinogens on our food...people will get cancer...wow big stretch of the imagination there huh...but we never imagined it, we trusted technology with the faith of a good christian.

New research shows a 30-50% drop in protein concentration of wheat and barley between 1938 and 1990. USDA nutrient info: Broccoli in 1950 averaged 12.9 milligrams of calcium per dry gram....4.4mg/gr dry wt. in 2003.

And here is one that may have significance in how we grow our herb: A study on raspberries showed that the yield doubled when given a high P diet, but the levels of 8 other minerals declined by 20-55%...

So the green revolution saved millions from famine and allowed them to continue over-breeding, so millions more can die from something else while taking a few thousand other species with them



TheBrutalTruth said:


> The only thing the lack of space on Earth says to me is that it is time for humanity to leave Earth.


I am an ardent supporter of this...I'll hang out here and hold down the fort.

It is not space that is the determining factor with humans exceeding (K), but arable land and fresh water...these seem to be lacking elsewhere as well.

All this being said...of course technology has helped each of us, some in life changing/saving ways. The perspective is non-anthropocentric. It is undoubtedly better for the Earth, for us to continue to fly towards the flame, rather than try to make small changes that will extend the life of the infectious disease (humans) at the expense of flora and fauna.

I probably should smoke now


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 9, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> about the population...could be. As for the stone age....we have had thousands of years between then and the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


References?

There's a lot I want to see independent verification of, specifically

New research shows a 30-50% drop in protein concentration of wheat and barley between 1938 and 1990. USDA nutrient info: Broccoli in 1950 averaged 12.9 milligrams of calcium per dry gram....4.4mg/gr dry wt. in 2003.


And here is one that may have significance in how we grow our herb: A study on raspberries showed that the yield doubled when given a high P diet, but the levels of 8 other minerals declined by 20-55%...


Though, would you rather those millions have starved?

Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...

Besides, there's always vertical expansion... if the cities would ditch the light laws and realize that the only way to deal with increasing densities is to build up with infrastructure...

Besides, a technological breakthrough would probably be something that allows the reclamation of useful resources from landfills, and the destruction of the useless resources.

Of course there have always been frauds claiming to have achieved transmutation, but alas, only true transmutation can save humanity.

Well, either that or realizing that we can not solve our problems here with out expanding into space. Something that we both seem to agree on.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 10, 2009)

What about utalizing some of the resources in our oceans? I heard a statistic somewhere that said more than 85% of our oceans are completely unexplored, and we're finding thousands of new plants and animals on the land every single year. There's gotta be tons of useful stuff out there we just havn't found yet.

Also, I completely agree about the vertical expansion, I think that's the next step.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 10, 2009)

who's to say a rural village family orientated life would have less quality that is a matter of opinion of which many disagree. some feel living in a modern society with its lack of individual importance and aspects of impersonal treatment of the masses is not healthy for humans which are tribal in nature. the current form of human life is not the end all be all to happiness in any way. in fact life expectancy is on the decline in the us and has been for at least a decade. also with our technologically advanced lifestyles we use almost half of available resources world wide. this is a recipe for disaster on many levels in the near future. what we consider quality of living has no resemblance to how simply most live happily world wide we are taught to believe any lifestyle or value system different to our own is suffering which is untrue.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 10, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> What about utalizing some of the resources in our oceans? I heard a statistic somewhere that said more than 85% of our oceans are completely unexplored, and we're finding thousands of new plants and animals on the land every single year. There's gotta be tons of useful stuff out there we just havn't found yet.
> 
> Also, I completely agree about the vertical expansion, I think that's the next step.


Lots of them, the problem is there is a lot more water so the actual concentrations are minute. If you could come up with an economical way to extract the resources then perhaps.

Nano-tech might be the best bet, it would also likely make desalination of ocean water a cinch.

The year the ocean's are no longer salt-water... 2305, lol.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 10, 2009)

i want to have the technology to selectively extract gold silver and platinum etc.. from the seas. whoever does that will be wealthy beyond imagination. gold and platinum are found in ppm's in the total volume of the ocean that is a whole lot of precious metal to be had but no worthwhile tech exists to economically extract metals. of course if there was it would be a bad thing for the ecosystem of the ocean and the earth oh well.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 10, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> References?
> 
> There's a lot I want to see independent verification of, specifically
> 
> ...


I am glad you asked: "Declining Fruit and Vegetable Nutrient Composition" _HortScience, _2009; 44:15



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Though, would you rather those millions have starved?
> 
> Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...


Very true. The compassionate Human in me says of course I would not want famine leading to the death of millions. However, the Biologist in me says, ABSOLUTELY!

Better millions than hundreds of millions...the resulting population explosion has been and continues, with few exceptions, to be exponential. Birth control was and still is the problem, and the Catholic church still does not get it.



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Besides, there's always vertical expansion... if the cities would ditch the light laws and realize that the only way to deal with increasing densities is to build up with infrastructure...


I do not know about general light laws...I know that suburban communities do not want anything vertical as that kinda defeats the purpose. In SoCal there are light restrictions for the observatories as light interferes with the telescopes.



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Besides, a technological breakthrough would probably be something that allows the reclamation of useful resources from landfills, and the destruction of the useless resources.


Useless resources is an oxymoron.



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Of course there have always been frauds claiming to have achieved transmutation, but alas, only true transmutation can save humanity.
> 
> Well, either that or realizing that we can not solve our problems here with out expanding into space. Something that we both seem to agree on.


Actually I do not think that the human virus should break out of the earthly host, though if say 2/3rds tried and failed...no harm no foul....leave me the keys to the mountain retreat!



bicycle racer said:


> who's to say a rural village family orientated life would have less quality that is a matter of opinion of which many disagree. some feel living in a modern society with its lack of individual importance and aspects of impersonal treatment of the masses is not healthy for humans which are tribal in nature. the current form of human life is not the end all be all to happiness in any way. in fact life expectancy is on the decline in the us and has been for at least a decade. also with our technologically advanced lifestyles we use almost half of available resources world wide. this is a recipe for disaster on many levels in the near future. what we consider quality of living has no resemblance to how simply most live happily world wide we are taught to believe any lifestyle or value system different to our own is suffering which is untrue.


I agree. I also think that we are working harder to be able to afford all the things that are supposed to make are lives easier (work less). And why is it that we value work as much as we do? To me leisure is far more valuable.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 10, 2009)

as far as going vertical who wants to live that way how horrible the concept reminds me of new york and its stacked population its a shit hole. i would not live in such a way if you paid me and i fear anyone who feels thats an option for humans in general.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 10, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> i want to have the technology to selectively extract gold silver and platinum etc.. from the seas. whoever does that will be wealthy beyond imagination. gold and platinum are found in ppm's in the total volume of the ocean that is a whole lot of precious metal to be had but no worthwhile tech exists to economically extract metals. of course if there was it would be a bad thing for the ecosystem of the ocean and the earth oh well.


I was happy to read your last sentence because that is the problem.

When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. ~John Muir



bicycle racer said:


> as far as going vertical who wants to live that way how horrible the concept reminds me of new york and its stacked population its a shit hole. i would not live in such a way if you paid me and i fear anyone who feels thats an option for humans in general.


I agree, I would hate it...I might be able to put up with it for a killer view, but will never be a rich man. Personally, I cannot stand apartment living. I live in a trailer park and it is far too cramped. I have long said I want to live where I cant see, hear, or smell my neighbors...clothing optional living.

However, for those that do not mind this lifestyle, I think it is good. Keeps them from building more suburbs...sprawl even sounds vulgar.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 10, 2009)

yes but people who find such living acceptable in my eyes are part of the problem and i feel are a threat to those still sane with regards to how humans should exist. a little abstract maybe but i feel strongly about things like this it is all very troubling. the problem as im sure you know is that most people are extremely stupid and easily manipulated by the powers that be the future will be very bleak before it gets better at least as far as im concerned.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 10, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> yes but people who find such living acceptable in my eyes are part of the problem and i feel are a threat to those still sane with regards to how humans should exist. a little abstract maybe but i feel strongly about things like this it is all very troubling. the problem as im sure you know is that most people are extremely stupid and easily manipulated by the powers that be the future will be very bleak before it gets better at least as far as im concerned.


I guess I actually agree completely on both. Because of this some people want to do things to change. Personally I just want to move to the middle of nowhere and attempt to be left very alone. I have a child who has 4 more years of school that keeps me from this now. I would not mind living with others in near proximity, but living in SoCal has me questioning if I could actually find more than a handful of like minded fools.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 10, 2009)

yeah me too in my optimal situation i would have access to a city village town center whatever but would live at least 5 to 10 miles from others except maybe a few select like minded individuals. some people crave technologically advanced 'easy city life' those are as i mentioned people i feel are a threat to mankind. not so much based on there conscious lifestyle choices but on there weak minds. stupidity to me is the greatest of all threats. extreme maybe but i dont think so.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 11, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> I am glad you asked: "Declining Fruit and Vegetable Nutrient Composition" _HortScience, _2009; 44:15
> 
> 
> Very true. The compassionate Human in me says of course I would not want famine leading to the death of millions. However, the Biologist in me says, ABSOLUTELY!
> ...


http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/1/15

Well, there's the abstract...

And yeah, it appears that the high yield, high growth (more plant mass) crops have some minerals at lower concentrations than lower yielding plants.

Makes sense when you think about it though. A plant that is bigger is going to have a lower concentration of whatever nutrients it absorbs, and as it can only gather nutrients from a limited area it is going to have to make do with what is there, so the bigger the plant, the lower the concentration if the area being tapped by its roots remains the same.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 11, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Useless resources is an oxymoron.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I also think that we are working harder to be able to afford all the things that are supposed to make are lives easier (work less). And why is it that we value work as much as we do? To me leisure is far more valuable.


On the first sentence, well I suppose if its useless it's not a resource, but I was thinking of mercury inparticular. A neurotoxin that is only used in CFLs, and that is incredibly damaging to the environment. The greenest technology available is LED Lighting... though I heard that some researchers managed to build a incandescent that was more efficient than a CFL.


The second, true that, but one has to compensate the farmer for the time that they are being forced to use to work their fields, and thus one needs to produce something of value to be able to eat.

Either that or grow one's own food, which is probably a lot more difficult than it sounds, and expensive. I do not own the tillage to plant my own crops, or raise my own poultry or meat animals. 

And then there's the vehicle that I bought for a chick that I'm stuck making payments on... didn't even get laid out of that CF...

So, C'est la vie, and alas, I am enslaved by my own past naivete (for just under 4 more years...), and the government, but I'm trying to avoid getting started on the government...


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 12, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/1/15
> 
> Makes sense when you think about it though. A plant that is bigger is going to have a lower concentration of whatever nutrients it absorbs, and as it can only gather nutrients from a limited area it is going to have to make do with what is there, so the bigger the plant, the lower the concentration if the area being tapped by its roots remains the same.


True about the limitation of making due with what is there. But as for a larger plant having lower concentrations of whatever nutrient or mineral just because it is larger...As long as it is present, this probably is not the case, as long as you are not comparing young small plants to old large plants, then by % it would be lower in the larger but older plant.

So the issue is two fold and separate.

First, modern farming techniques of intensive plantings with little or no rotations while adding only the limiting factors to plant growth (NPK)...soil has fewer minerals available, so little is taken up by the plants.

Second is the use of yield boosting nutes creating plants that also uptake less other minerals, even though they are available.

Both conditions could exist for some crops making the problem worse.

Also, I do not know, but it is likely, that plants that are selected for higher yields are also lower in nutrition...possible tripling the effect.


----------



## turtleblood (Jun 16, 2009)

Just to take a step back...

I love that a thread originally meant to convey the ideas of non-religion has evolved to such topics as actually philosophizing about the way humans ar_e meant_ to live and the problems we have caused by meandering away from the meaning in life and essentially the _embrace_ of greed and corruption that has polluted our host Earth.

I wonder if religious discussions ever venture this far with intellectual thought. 

How wonderfully bright, simple, and smart the world would be without religion. Our species does not need to debate over the purpose or the correctness of life. Instead, we should debate over the methods with which we live and how to make these methods more friendly to our host ecosystems. Oh, the potential.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Jun 16, 2009)

Welcome to the club. I told my grandma I knew I was an atheist at the age of 4, she had a good laugh. Told me she wished she realized the BS and lies that young before wasting so much time with church.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 16, 2009)

i realized i was not religious and would not be very young and was an atheist for the early years of my life. i have matured as a human gained much knowledge and have had experiences since then which made atheism seem as lost to my eyes as religion.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 16, 2009)

turtleblood said:


> Just to take a step back...
> 
> I love that a thread originally meant to convey the ideas of non-religion has evolved to such topics as actually philosophizing about the way humans ar_e meant_ to live and the problems we have caused by meandering away from the meaning in life and essentially the _embrace_ of greed and corruption that has polluted our host Earth.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily, a great many scientists believe in a higher power, maybe not the church's higher power, but a higher power nonetheless.

Of course, I believe in a higher power as well, I just don't like the dual scams of organized religion and government. Both of which are built upon the premise of being there when you need help, and usually aren't... unless you are at the bottom, and then they want to help hold you down not help build you up.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 16, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> Not necessarily, a great many scientists believe in a higher power, maybe not the church's higher power, but a higher power nonetheless.


I suppose it depends on who you include as "scientists". I still think the statement is a huge exaggeration. 

I believe in a higher power also...the Sun.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Jun 17, 2009)

Lets all pray to the law of gravity!


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 17, 2009)

einstein was known to in no way be an atheist i would say hes a scientist. most quantum physicists are not atheist though steven hawkings is atheist. it seems when you get to the higher levels of quantum physics most are not atheist its almost impossible in my eyes to study the workings of the universe and be atheist. someone can be intelligent in one way but lack critical thinking in other aspects of life. as with most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle in the grey.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Jun 17, 2009)

Einstein, I'd say, was at least a weak atheist(his view on a 'personal god' and religions in general are quite clear, he regarded them all as childish superstitions). He has some funny quotes on religion. Though most scientists seem to stick with agnosticism(which is basically the same as weak atheism), which is more than fair.

Any scientist who claims otherwise is probably not worth listening to. As they've failed to apply the scientific method.

He clearly stated he did *not* believe in a personal god, souls, heaven/hell, divine miracles, or any sort of god which plays any role in human life, fate, or destiny. Not that "_I'm unsure of whether there is/are god(s) or not_", which is true agnosticism. That's not even close to what Einstein ever said.

One could say... that God to Einstein was Nature. Laws of the universe, matter and energy(existence), and spirit(thought, actions, morals, ethics, etc.).

He even claimed belief in Spinoza's God(which is not really a god at all, but a philosophy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 17, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Einstein, I'd say, was at least a weak atheist(his view on a 'personal god' and religions in general are quite clear, he regarded them all as childish superstitions). He has some funny quotes on religion. Though most scientists seem to stick with agnosticism(which is basically the same as weak atheism), which is more than fair.
> 
> Any scientist who claims otherwise is probably not worth listening to. As they've failed to apply the scientific method.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly right, Einstein did not believe in a personal God that intervened in human affairs, let alone the God of the bible...

Even if he did, that wouldn't mean anything about if God does exist or not. Exactly how saying he doesn't believe in God doesn't say anything about the existence of God. That's just one mans opinion.


Also, I would completely disagree with the statement that most (or even a majority percentage) physicists believe in God. (the way Einstein perceived God is not the same as what regular people refer to God as). Plenty of tests have shown that the higher the education level of an individual, the less religious they tend to be. Do you have any evidence to support that statement, BR?


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 17, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> einstein was known to in no way be an atheist i would say hes a scientist. most quantum physicists are not atheist though steven hawkings is atheist. it seems when you get to the higher levels of quantum physics most are not atheist its almost impossible in my eyes to study the workings of the universe and be atheist. someone can be intelligent in one way but lack critical thinking in other aspects of life. as with most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle in the grey.


To believe in quantum physics takes faith. It is all very difficult to test, and therefore for me hard to swallow. I am not saying that they are wrong about everything, I just think that a lot of physics will in time be proved wrong. 

This is why I questioned the "scientists". Many fields that fall under the umbrella of science, are more pseudo-science and philosophy...Psychology using the emergent field of neurology to justify itself as anything more than several similar, yet all conflicting ideas (not theory!) on human behavior. The guys who make the "It's not creationism...it's 'intelligent design'" propaganda videos that are commonly distributed by the pre-med students to the real biology students, always have some weird title like Prof of BioSociology or they are Physicist of some shade or another.

My physics professor was Mormon and had like 8 kids.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 17, 2009)

i said nothing about personal gods or religion in any way and the scientific method you speak of you should know from previous posts that im not religious or naive as to the ways of the world. that said i stand by my statements and have read books written by einstein years ago he was a much more creative abstract thinking man than your average scientist. i think we as humans read the same words in different ways to suit what we prefer and is comfortable for our beliefs be it atheist religious or in between. im very science based but i have had my own observations and experiences i was not raised religious and was atheist for the first 20 years of my life i see my previous beliefs as childish now. there are some things that are absolutely unexplainable regarding the universe and will never be this is what leads highly intelligent individuals to be able to reconsider things regarding the complexities of our situation as humans. put simply faith is silly some things i know but cannot explain in words the human spoken language makes it impossible. i strongly think spiritual understanding or awareness is genetic as much as any other skill in life either mental or physical. peace


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 17, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> i said nothing about personal gods or religion in any way and the scientific method you speak of you should know from previous posts that im not religious or naive as to the ways of the world. that said i stand by my statements and have read books written by einstein years ago he was a much more creative abstract thinking man than your average scientist. i think we as humans read the same words in different ways to suit what we prefer and is comfortable for our beliefs be it atheist religious or in between. im very science based but i have had my own observations and experiences i was not raised religious and was atheist for the first 20 years of my life i see my previous beliefs as childish now. there are some things that are absolutely unexplainable regarding the universe and will never be this is what leads highly intelligent individuals to be able to reconsider things regarding the complexities of our situation as humans. put simply faith is silly some things i know but cannot explain in words the human spoken language makes it impossible. i strongly think spiritual understanding or awareness is genetic as much as any other skill in life either mental or physical. peace


What kinds of things are you talking about?


----------



## turtleblood (Jun 18, 2009)

_"Just to take a step back...

I love that a thread originally meant to convey the ideas of non-religion has evolved to such topics as actually philosophizing about the way humans are meant to live and the problems we have caused by meandering away from the meaning in life and essentially the embrace of greed and corruption that has polluted our host Earth.

I wonder if religious discussions ever venture this far with intellectual thought. 

How wonderfully bright, simple, and smart the world would be without religion. Our species does not need to debate over the purpose or the correctness of life. Instead, we should debate over the methods with which we live and how to make these methods more friendly to our host ecosystems. Oh, the potential."_



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Not necessarily, a great many scientists believe in a higher power, maybe not the church's higher power, but a higher power nonetheless.


Huh? When did I say anything about scientists or their beliefs? And this "great many" you speak of... most of them don't have all-too "scientific" degrees, like Hayduke said. Plus, even if you consider these pseudo-scientists just as valid as the rest of the scientific world, they still only make up a tiny fraction of the scientific community... and I mean _tiny._


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 18, 2009)

turtleblood said:


> _"Just to take a step back...
> 
> I love that a thread originally meant to convey the ideas of non-religion has evolved to such topics as actually philosophizing about the way humans are meant to live and the problems we have caused by meandering away from the meaning in life and essentially the embrace of greed and corruption that has polluted our host Earth.
> 
> ...



Wow, way to show off your lack of intelligence, or sophistication by insulting some of the greatest minds that this planet produced. Einstein, Oppenheimer, and so on and so forth.

Go be blinded by your bigotry some where else.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 18, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> some of the greatest minds that this planet produced. Einstein, Oppenheimer, and so on and so forth.


Yes, where would this world be without Einstein and Oppenheimer...


----------



## Brazko (Jun 19, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> What kinds of things are you talking about?


 
I don't know what B Racer could've meant...but if you ask me the thing is Coincidence, And when you become aware / align yourself with this phenomenom that has existed since the Big Bang, eternity, or Whateva, it no longer becomes Coincidence, and you can't explain Coincidence to someone it is only beholding to the person that experiences it, It is most difficult you see to explain this to someone who can't feel their own Pinky toe, it's there, you just gotta Sense it....My 2 Cents


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 19, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Yes, where would this world be without Einstein and Oppenheimer...


I'd imagine that the United States would be getting sucked into one European Conflict after another, because France and Germany would be devoid of resources.

Nuclear Power, while it does have destructive uses, is also a very efficient source of power, and much cleaner than coal. Fusion is only more so, and with out the research of people like Einstein, Oppenheimer, the Curies, and other scientists who researched radiation and physics we would not have Nuclear Power.

Solar Power could easily be used in destructive ways as well.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 19, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> Solar Power could easily be used in destructive ways as well.


 
Indeed it can!


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 19, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> I'd imagine that the United States would be getting sucked into one European Conflict after another, because France and Germany would be devoid of resources.


Europe has been devoid of resources for 100 years...we are now at war where there are resources!



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Nuclear Power, while it does have destructive uses, is also a very efficient source of power, and much cleaner than coal. Fusion is only more so, and with out the research of people like Einstein, Oppenheimer, the Curies, and other scientists who researched radiation and physics we would not have Nuclear Power.


DDT is a very effective pesticide. Nuclear power is very clean if you ignore the energy used and the environmental destruction involved in uranium mining...now the purification and enrichment (best to do all of these near rivers or on the boarders of National parks whenever possible)...not to mention the waste. This is a scheme which enriches a few in the here and now, with total disregard for the costs, present or future. It is not sustainable in a non radioactive world.

Solar Power could easily be used in destructive ways as well.[/quote]

Yes, but really? Getting your enemies to stand still would be the challenge


----------



## Cap K (Jun 19, 2009)

Musical Suicide said:


> Ummm.. no last I checked if i dont give my faith to god before i die, I go to hell or purgatory. If i denounce him its hell, if I'm gay its hell, along with the rest of "its" shopping list of regulations to rest easy. I wrote a song, and taped it and put it on youube... its title, "kill god" you should see all the comments and messages about how I'm going to hell to be raped for eternity, and forever live in pain, and watch my parents die, and suffer eternal misery just cause I wrote my feelings in a song. Thats why I'm against all organized religion. Cause they wont love me when life ends and for some reason their is a god and heaven and all that fairy tale, I will be sentanced to suffering cause i feel their is no reason to belive in fairy tales with no real proof, and science can proove all the dates wrong... or at least off. Thats why I truely can say I love everyone for who they are, no matter what, cause My relgion, (or lack of) will not come between their loved ones and peace, if ever plausible.


Yes they were wrong to condemn you, to judge you for judgement is for god. What I would say to you is that is imperative for you to have a sincere relationship with god before you die. Maybe just some food for thought, but the greatest trick the devil will pull will be to convince the world that he does not exist. the reason this will be his greatest trick is because by default he will have also convinced the world that god does not exist.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 19, 2009)

Cap K said:


> Yes they were wrong to condemn you, to judge you for judgement is for god. What I would say to you is that is imperative for you to have a sincere relationship with god before you die. Maybe just some food for thought, but the greatest trick the devil will pull will be to convince the world that he does not exist. the reason this will be his greatest trick is because by default he will have also convinced the world that god does not exist.


Look into the Egyptian sun of god Horus or any of the 20 or so other messiahs who were born on the 25th of DEC, of a virgin birth, were called the same names, performed miracles, crucified, resurrected, and ascended into the sky.

It is a myth...a good story used to pass down knowledge. It is all Astrology! It is not the son...it is the Sun!

The christian cross is not a symbol of crucifixion...it is a pagan zodiac!

The three stars of Orion's belt belt have been called the "three kings" for thousands of years. They point to (announced the birth of), on the 25th of Dec. where the Sun, after setting lower and lower in the southern sky from the Summer solstice until it stops on Dec 22...., is crucified as it is in the "Southern Cross", then after 3 days, the suns movement is resurrected...ascends once again into the heavens, announcing the rebirth of life until it's celebration after the spring equinox...the triumph of light over darkness.

Following the virgin birth, the performing of miracles, the public execution and the public resurrection...there are exactly zero accounts of such amazing events from any scribes or scholars of the first a 60 years of the first century....the whole thing was a roman scam to control the people and justify conquest and taxation...my how things don't change!


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 20, 2009)

Cap K said:


> Yes they were wrong to condemn you, to judge you for judgement is for god. What I would say to you is that is imperative for you to have a sincere relationship with god before you die. Maybe just some food for thought, but the greatest trick the devil will pull will be to convince the world that he does not exist. the reason this will be his greatest trick is because by default he will have also convinced the world that god does not exist.


It would be very easy for a God to counter the Devils actions by simply showing humanity that he does exist. There ya go, game over, God wins... Why doesn't he just do that?


----------



## turtleblood (Jun 20, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> It would be very easy for a God to counter the Devils actions by simply showing humanity that he does exist. There ya go, game over, God wins... Why doesn't he just do that?


I love it. Also love how long it took to get the jesus proselytizers out here.


----------



## Cap K (Jun 21, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> It would be very easy for a God to counter the Devils actions by simply showing humanity that he does exist. There ya go, game over, God wins... Why doesn't he just do that?


I don't think god is a show monkey that does miracles for mere mortals when we want him to. I know it's like the hardest thing to believe in something you can't see or touch.


----------



## Hayduke (Jun 21, 2009)

Cap K said:


> I don't think god is a show monkey that does miracles for mere mortals when we want him to. I know it's like the hardest thing to believe in something you can't see or touch.


Even when we throw coins in his cup?


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 21, 2009)

Cap K said:


> I don't think god is a show monkey that does miracles for mere mortals when we want him to. I know it's like the hardest thing to believe in something you can't see or touch.


 
Yeah, but the logic of not revealing himself doesn't hold water. If the point of this existence is to live a righteous life and treat others with respect, yada yada, then get into heaven and spend eternity with God... wouldn't the easiest way to do that, from an OMNIPOTENT BEINGS perspective be to simply show yourself? Like I said, game over, God wins, the Devil doesn't stand a chance in Hell (no pun)... 

CLEARLY that isn't this God's goal.

...which begs the question, what is?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 24, 2009)

hehehehe


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 24, 2009)

that was fucking hilarious brutal but hilarious i laughed out loud it sure does look funny(christianity) when put that way lol. i think its possible some of these profits existed and spoke of peaceful ways for people to live. but the crazy stories and crap dont show up for hundreds of years later so there is most certainly a time gap there where all the b.s. was infused to control people. its funny though it still works now idiots abound. again funny shit.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

christianity using all things of insanity to acheive vanity robbing and stealing in the name of the lord.....fire to them and theyre ways here comes a deacon with a plate in him hand wanting the money of the poor man so pastor can buy a ford mustang and pass by u and your woman....folls go to church on sunday


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

if you dont believe in the almighty then you will die,,i will never i am the king of shit and piss and i come to slay the dragon with my magical fist


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 2, 2009)

cbtwohundread said:


> if you dont believe in the almighty then you will die,,i will never i am the king of shit and piss and i come to slay the dragon with my magical fist


 
Charlie Manson, when did they let you have access to the internet???


----------



## Akita420 (Jul 2, 2009)

If I may add a bit to this discussion, there are 2 parts I would like to address. 1. The mental states of people that go to religion and their overall intellectual capacity. 2. Where did the earth and heavens come from. (I am a supporter of the Big Bang Theory)

In my search for the "truth" (use term lightly), I keep getting led back to the Theory of mind. Let me post a bief excerpt from wikipedia.

Defining Theory of Mind
Theory of Mind is a &#8216;theory&#8217; insofar as the &#8220;mind&#8221; is not "directly observable."[2]. The presumption that others have a mind is termed a "theory of mind" because each human can only prove the existence of his or her own mind through introspection, and one has no direct access to others' minds. It is typically assumed that others have minds by analogy with one's own, and based on the reciprocal nature of social interaction, as observed in joint attention[3],the functional use of language[4],and understanding of others' emotions and actions[5]. Having a theory of mind allows one to attribute thoughts, desires, and intentions to others, to predict or explain their actions, and to posit their intentions. As originally defined, it enables one to understand that mental states can be the cause of&#8212;and thus be used to explain and predict&#8212;others&#8217; behavior.[6] Being able to attribute mental states to others and understanding them as causes of behavior implies, in part, that one must be able to conceive of the mind as a &#8220;generator of representations&#8221;[7][8]. If a person does not have a complete theory of mind it may be a sign of cognitive or developmental impairment.

False-belief task
One of the most important milestones in theory of mind development is gaining the ability to attribute _false belief_: that is, to recognize that others can have beliefs about the world that are wrong. To do this, it is suggested, one must understand how knowledge is formed, that people&#8217;s beliefs are based on their knowledge, that mental states can differ from reality, and that people&#8217;s behavior can be predicted by their mental states. Numerous versions of the false-belief task have been developed, based on the initial task done by Wimmer and Perner (1983).

Appearance-reality task
Other tasks have been developed to try to solve the problems inherent in the false-belief task. In the "appearance-reality", or "Smarties" task, experimenters ask children what they believe to be the contents of a box that looks as though it holds a candy called "Smarties." After the child guesses (usually) "Smarties," each is shown that the box in fact contained pencils. The experimenter then re-closes the box and asks the child what she thinks another person, who has not been shown the true contents of the box, will think is inside. The child passes the task if she responds that another person will think that there are "Smarties" in the box, but fails the task if she responds that another person will think that the box contains pencils. Gopnik & Astington (198 found that children pass this test at age four or five years.

The other night on the science channel they were discussing M-Theory and String Theory. They were in search of the singularity, and concluded That M-Theory had to have 11 dimensions. They determined that there are multiple parallel universes with membranes that surround their outer edges. These membranes oscillate like waves on a plane. When they touch, it causes an explosion. They then determined that time did not start with "our" big bang and that time could be measured before this point (the singularity lol). They further deduced that the membranes that contained other universes exsisted prior to our explosion.

After watching this program, it left me wanting more answers. Like when did these dimensions/membranes/universes all start. We may have found our universes singularity, but the quest is still on for the ultimate singularity. This brings us back to the eternal question, which came first? The chicken or the egg? Furthermore, is the creation that happens when these membranes touch, perpetual and infinate?

Today I asked my father inlaw, how he felt about the greek gods. He laughed and called them false gods. I think he fails to perceive the dichotomy between christianity and greek mythology. One of the first things that I picked up on in grade school, was past cultures/civilizations had their own beliefs that many years later, have been cast aside for newer more foolish ones. With that being said refer to part 1. lol


----------



## turtleblood (Jul 5, 2009)

wow, akita420, that information was wonderful. good job! i really like the theory of mind, i think i have had similar feelings but this develops it much more than i ever did! great stuff.


----------



## Akita420 (Jul 6, 2009)

Im glad you found it interesting. Perception plays a large role in what we think and feel. Understanding the complexities of perception and how your perceptions develope will put you on the right track. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
"What one perceives is a result of interplays between past experiences, including one&#8217;s culture, and the interpretation of the perceived. If the percept does not have support in any of these perceptual bases it is unlikely to rise above perceptual threshold."

"The processes of perception routinely alter what humans see. When people view something with a preconceived concept about it, they tend to take those concept and see them whether or not they are there."


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 7, 2009)

i watched religilous last night comical. its just to easy clowning religious people like shooting fish in a barrrel.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jul 7, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> i watched religilous last night comical. its just to easy clowning religious people like shooting fish in a barrrel.


I ended up burning Religulous. Hilarious movie. i'm like bill mahr... i preach " i don't know"


----------



## indy kuh (Jul 7, 2009)

holy shit im not reading all that!


----------



## DogFacedDemon (Oct 18, 2009)

Atheism is just another dogma.
It makes shit of organized religion - but, I had logically dismantled my catholic belief system by the time I was 12, so it's no biggie, religions are crazy, power-hungry institutions. But, atheism or science have in no way proven the lack of omnipotent extra-dimensional forces that some traditionalists may call "God".

I find atheism as amusing as main-stream religion; the same overly-dogmatic BS with no real proof. They've got their holy book - the god delusion, hail dawkins. It's pretty funny. Materialism? Really? That's a little '19th century', don't you think? Have you not heard the good news from the problem child of physics - quantum physics - that; every electron is the yawning mouth of a wormhole that leads to quadrillions of higher dimensional universes that are completely beyond rational apprehension? 
Have fun saying God can't possibly exist because you can't measure it with your ruler & pencil, while a moment later denouncing jesus lovers as ignorant fools - are you feeling enlightened? 
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, I just enjoy ridiculing the atheist point of view because they think they're reasoning logically from religion being BS, to the creation of this unfathomably brilliant universe/multiverse being a random occurrence - 'the hubble telescope can't see any God, so there!". Flying the banner of science, while failing to acknowledge that at the root of modern science was an angelic revelation that was visited upon Rene DesCartes. People that think 'the big bang' is a sufficient explanation of the question; 'why are we here?'. 
Big bang theory states: EVERYTHING SPRANG FROM NOTHING, IN A SINGLE INSTANT, FOR NO REASON.
How is that any different from "... & God said; 'let there be light!'..."?
I think most people have no clue & should stop acting like they know what the f*uck they're talking about - even if "experts" say so.
& the rest of us, that KNOW "God" & it's endless implications & boundless love...
Ummm...
We've taken magic mushrooms before. 



Word.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 18, 2009)

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

That's it.

Athiesm doesn't need to disprove god. If it is asserted that something exists, then the person asserting that existence should provide proof if they expect it to be believed.

Some atheists are even deists. They believe there may be something out there, but it is not the small gods of man.




DogFacedDemon said:


> Atheism is just another dogma.
> It makes shit of organized religion - but, I had logically dismantled my catholic belief system by the time I was 12, so it's no biggie, religions are crazy, power-hungry institutions. But, atheism or science have in no way proven the lack of omnipotent extra-dimensional forces that some traditionalists may call "God".
> 
> I find atheism as amusing as main-stream religion; the same overly-dogmatic BS with no real proof. They've got their holy book - the god delusion, hail dawkins. It's pretty funny. Materialism? Really? That's a little '19th century', don't you think? Have you not heard the good news from the problem child of physics - quantum physics - that; every electron is the yawning mouth of a wormhole that leads to quadrillions of higher dimensional universes that are completely beyond rational apprehension?
> ...


----------



## DogFacedDemon (Oct 18, 2009)

But of course! A lot of anti-theists seem to be running around calling themselves atheists. That's my main beef. Apologies if my wording was a little off, It's a lazy sunday with much super silver haze.


----------



## DogFacedDemon (Oct 18, 2009)

""Of course science doesn't know everything! If it did, it would stop!" - Dara O'Briain"


----------



## bicycle racer (Oct 19, 2009)

ahh yes another voice of reason dogfaceddemon im with you on your feelings on this subject. i find religious types and atheists generally to be equally lost and missing the big picture. either group is normally unable to look at things in a different manner than they already do or have been taught its funny. both are also normally equally arrogant and sure of themselves and unwilling to hear anything against there beliefs as well fucking humans. as always the truth is in the grey somewhere. whats funny is the more you really understand things the more its clear you know nothing. +rep


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 19, 2009)

My god is that of a mystical giant pink invisible unicorn. The world sits on it's back, which holds us up, suspended in a void of infinity. And this Giant pink invisible unicorn sits on the back of an infinite succession of other mystical giant pink invisible unicorns. Ergo, the universe consists purely of pink unicorns on the backs of other pink unicorns. Your Gods, and your Science are all lies. Your preachers and intellectuals have been lying to you. Don't believe me? close your eyes. Close your eyes and call out to her. After this open your eyes and tell me what you see.


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 19, 2009)

Nothing, right? I told you; invisible. 

My god, and hopefully before it's too late, your god as well has been proven.
For the first time, a gods name is finally born! and Her name is Steve. Steve the giant mystical pink invisible unicorn.
Amen.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 19, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> ahh yes another voice of reason dogfaceddemon im with you on your feelings on this subject. i find religious types and atheists generally to be equally lost and missing the big picture. either group is normally unable to look at things in a different manner than they already do or have been taught its funny. both are also normally equally arrogant and sure of themselves and unwilling to hear anything against there beliefs as well fucking humans. as always the truth is in the grey somewhere. whats funny is the more you really understand things the more its clear you know nothing. +rep


B Racer, what's Up? Man, I've been wondering where you've been, I haven't seen you post in so Long, I thought you had moved oN.., But I see You are Just Wise.. I pity Me sometimes.., Good to See you Speeding by again Buddy..


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 19, 2009)

DogFacedDemon said:


> But of course! A lot of anti-theists seem to be running around calling themselves atheists. That's my main beef. Apologies if my wording was a little off, It's a lazy sunday with much super silver haze.


Oh that's okay. 

I'd fit that label too.



atheist/adeist
anti-theist
PEaRList
skeptic
(regarding adeist: I'm open to the possibility of something _nearly_ incomprehensible being responsible for the creation of the universe, but have the highest confidence that whatever it is, it will be a natural phenomenon, and not a deity of any sort. The supernatural never stands up to reason.)


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 19, 2009)

DJBoxhouse said:


> Steve the giant mystical pink invisible unicorn.
> Amen.


Does the invisible pink unicorn mind if we watch porn?

Doctrine matters.

Also, who is the balancing force against the invisible pink unicorn, bless his/her androgynous silver-painted hooves. Would it be the Translucent Ebony Narwhale of Injustice?


----------



## bicycle racer (Oct 20, 2009)

yeah brazko im around i just normally dont have enough energy for the political or religious threads way to tiring for me they can be deeply frustrating.


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Oct 20, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Does the invisible pink unicorn mind if we watch porn?
> 
> Doctrine matters.
> 
> Also, who is the balancing force against the invisible pink unicorn, bless his/her androgynous silver-painted hooves. Would it be the Translucent Ebony Narwhale of Injustice?


Only midget porn really. It's our form of prayer.

And we dare not speak of the great Translucent one, who is stacked side by side in a horizontal cascade of eternity rather than vertically. Your Location or reference point doesn't exist, it's never relative. Also, lots of gummie bears. It's all you're allowed to eat. Not so bad really.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 23, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> yeah brazko im around i just normally dont have enough energy for the political or religious threads way to tiring for me they can be deeply frustrating.


Hey B RAcer, that's Me Right Behind You...See You at the Finish LIne....


----------



## 420HAZE420 (Mar 25, 2010)

Musical Suicide said:


> Something For You To Think About, Before you sentance me to eternal hell, just because I dont belive in A God.
> 
> 
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?[/FONT]
> ...




My friend you have alot to learn


----------



## PadawanBater (Mar 25, 2010)

420HAZE420 said:


> My friend you have alot to learn


...cuz you're smarter than Sam Harris...


----------



## Hayduke (Mar 26, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> ...cuz you're smarter than Sam Harris...


Hmmm...this does not seem like a spankable offense???...Must have been somewhere else


----------



## 420ezah420 (Apr 14, 2010)

This thread should be renamed the Dumbshit Manifesto.


----------



## Hayduke (Apr 14, 2010)

420ezah420 said:


> This thread should be renamed the Dumbshit Manifesto.


Why...just because you make a post???


----------



## jfgordon1 (Apr 14, 2010)

420ezah420 said:


> This thread should be renamed the Dumbshit Manifesto.





Hayduke said:


> Why...just because you make a post???


ZING!!!


----------



## 420ezah420 (Apr 15, 2010)

jfgordon1 said:


> ZING!!!



J/K I love you guys anyway


----------



## iNVESTIGATE (Apr 27, 2010)

[youtube]jXoQsS1Bu80[/youtube]


----------

