# What are the negatives of Atheism?



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

i saw someone mention this in a thread. id like to hear why you may think atheism is bad


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Sep 9, 2011)

i dotn think any religion or lack of is bad, its how you act in life that makes you what you are....to me religion is jus something to belive in, or something to have faith in.....theres good ahiests, and bad ones to, same with christians and muslims...jus my 2c

religion fascinates me for its history, but thats about all it does fo rme lol


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

How can there be inherit negatives to atheism when atheism is just the failure of theism to provide a convincing argument? You can certainly find negative attributes that are often found among atheists, but these are not qualities that derive from or are unique to an atheistic stance. You can find negativity in the misrepresentation of atheism, as I'm sure this thread will demonstrate, but those are simply straw man arguments. You can say atheism prevents you from living in an afterlife paradise, but that is only so if religion is true. I am open to the idea that atheism could have negative aspects and am interested in having them pointed out, but I am guessing this thread will produce nothing but the mistaken opinions I just outlined.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

Sizzle frost pretty much said what I was trying to say. Luger made this thread because I said something like atheists have as many negative attributes as Christians or something like that. But my point is that you make religious people seem so evil when atheists can be just as evil.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> How can there be inherit negatives to atheism when atheism is just the failure of theism to provide a convincing argument? You can certainly find negative attributes that are often found among atheists, but these are not qualities that derive from or are unique to an atheistic stance. You can find negativity in the misrepresentation of atheism, as I'm sure this thread will demonstrate, but those are simply straw man arguments. You can say atheism prevents you from living in an afterlife paradise, but that is only so if religion is true. I am open to the idea that atheism could have negative aspects and am interested in having them pointed out, but I am guessing this thread will produce nothing but the mistaken opinions I just outlined.


go look up the link between atheism and suicide. Suicide has a huge negative impact.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Sizzle frost pretty much said what I was trying to say. Luger made this thread because I said something like atheists have as many negative attributes as Christians or something like that. But my point is that you make religious people seem so evil when atheists can be just as evil.





Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah no problem bro, it was just a warning that they are just gonna keep stating the same things and going in circles to prove religion is bad, we can just as easily make a thread dedicated to all the negative attributes to atheism but of course they are just gonna disagree with it.


lets hear some of those negatives to atheism....


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Sizzle frost pretty much said what I was trying to say. Luger made this thread because I said something like atheists have as many negative attributes as Christians or something like that. But my point is that you make religious people seem so evil when atheists can be just as evil.


Religion offers a path to evil that is unique to religion because it provides justification for good people to commit evil acts. Do I need to point any further than the treatment of women in some Muslim communities for evidence? How about the systematic practice of mutilating female genitals? Think that is just a barbaric practice found in remote parts of the world? It is done en mass to infant boys in america for no other reason than religion. Try telling the girl who has acid thrown on her face simply because she attempted to learn to read that religion does not give birth to evil practices. 

This thread is not about the tendency for some people to be evil and some people to be good. It is about the negative consequences that are unique and inherit to atheism, vs those found in religion. I have just listed a scant few we find in religion, and await others to list ones we find with atheism.

Now, my view is that the problem is not worship of a deity, it is the uncritical adherence to dogma. It is the blind following of religious teachings. It is religions intolerance of inquiry and critical analysis. It is mans inclination to pervert religion into justification for evil intentions, religions inherit potential to be perverted, and religious followers tendency of self delusion in order to overlook these things.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> lets hear some of those negatives to atheism....


Dude. Seriously. Look at the first post you quoted. Think really hard. If you need some help I meant that atheists can be evil, Christians can be evil, Muslims can be evil...... Pay attention.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Religion offers a path to evil that is unique to religion because it provides justification for good people to commit evil acts. Do I need to point any further than the treatment of women in some Muslim communities for evidence? How about the systematic practice of mutilating female genitals? Think that is just a barbaric practice found in remote parts of the world? It is done en mass to infant boys in america for no other reason than religion. Try telling the girl who has acid thrown on her face simply because she attempted to learn to read that religion does not give birth to evil practices.
> 
> This thread is not about the tendency for some people to be evil and some people to be good. It is about the negative consequences that are unique and inherit to atheism, vs those found in religion. I have just listed a scant few we find in religion, and await others to list ones we find with atheism.
> 
> Now, my view is that the problem is not worship of a deity, it is the uncritical adherence to dogma. It is the blind following of religious teachings. It is religions intolerance of inquiry and critical analysis. It is mans inclination to pervert religion into justification for evil intentions, religions inherit potential to be perverted, and religious followers tendency of self delusion in order to overlook these things.


did you look up the link between atheism and suicide?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Dude. Seriously. Look at the first post you quoted. Think really hard. If you need some help I meant that atheists can be evil, Christians can be evil, Muslims can be evil...... Pay attention.





Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah no problem bro, it was just a warning that they are just gonna keep stating the same things and going in circles to prove religion is bad, *we can just as easily make a thread dedicated to all the negative attributes to atheism* but of course they are just gonna disagree with it.


again, what are the negative attributes of atheism? you said it would be easy. what are the bad things that atheism directly causes someone? we have direct connections between religion and evil. what about atheism?

edit: i would honestly love to know, just like heis would. if anyone can show us negative aspects of atheism, that will widen our views and show us new things. show us


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> did you look up the link between atheism and suicide?


No, but I encourage you to point it out so that we can examine it.


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Sep 9, 2011)

Atheism isnt bad nor is religion bad or good it all is how you perceive yourself in the end that will matter.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Sep 9, 2011)

is it possible to kill youself in cold blood? always wondered that


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 9, 2011)

Dizzle Frost said:


> is it possible to kill youself in cold blood? always wondered that


Yes. I am living proof.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Sep 9, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Yes. I am living proof.


 thanks for clearing that up LOL


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Sep 9, 2011)

another useless thread started by a desperate person


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 9, 2011)

~big cheez-eating grin~

I just did a bit o'Googling in re "atheism suicide link". The only info, and I use the term loosely, promoting such a link comes from obviously pro-religious fora. 
If the posters advancing that argument can show such a link *without* referring to a biased source, and can *clearly* demonstrate absence of religion as the primary proximate direct cause of self-induced death in a population sample who are notoriously lax at filling in the post-event survey form ... I'll pay attention. Until then,
~unconcealed yawn~
cheers'neer

ps I do not count myself an atheist. Imo declaratively stating "there is no godhead" is just as f***ed as saying, "there is a God here are [his] attributes and compliance instructions". I count myself an agnostic; less controversy that way. Fwiw.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Sep 9, 2011)

if you think life is not worth living without a creator then you have serious mental problems most likely caused by religious indoctrination as a child , i suggest you seek compensation .


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> another useless thread started by a desperate person


excuse me? how am i desperate? he said there was negatives to atheism, so i called him out on it. whats the problem?



cannabineer said:


> ~big cheez-eating grin~
> 
> I just did a bit o'Googling in re "atheism suicide link". The only info, and I use the term loosely, promoting such a link comes from obviously pro-religious fora.
> If the posters advancing that argument can show such a link *without* referring to a biased source, and can *clearly* demonstrate absence of religion as the primary proximate direct cause of self-induced death in a population sample who are notoriously lax at filling in the post-event survey form ... I'll pay attention. Until then,
> ...


yeah thats what i saw when i googled it too. i wonder if they consider anyone who doesnt go to church an atheist. also homosexuals have a pretty high suicide rate.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

please dont talk shit on religion in this thread. it will just start arguments that arent needed and fill the thread up with nonsense. this thread is just to find out the bad aspects of atheism


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> excuse me? how am i desperate? he said there was negatives to atheism, so i called him out on it. whats the problem?


I agree. It is a worthy question to pursue. If there are negative consequences to atheism I would like to be aware of them.


----------



## woodsusa (Sep 9, 2011)

You believe there is a God, you believe there isn't a God. Both are beliefs.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

woodsusa said:


> You believe there is a God, you believe there isn't a God. Both are beliefs.


You are convinced of god, you remain unconvinced of god. One is a belief, the other is the absence of a belief.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

funny, why dont you mention who it is?





Luger187 said:


> i saw someone mention this in a thread. id like to hear why you may think atheism is bad


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

funny how only big time atheists back each other up...


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You are convinced of god, you remain unconvinced of god. One is a belief, the other is the absence of a belief.


Respectfully disagree. "There is no tangible engaged godhead" is just as much a statement of faith as its opposite.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 9, 2011)

LOL....................

Boy if this isn't a loaded question.

What would you precieve the bad aspects to be? Do you have any in mind are or you just baiting a good ole faith battle?


----------



## woodsusa (Sep 9, 2011)

Bad aspect of atheism = no heaven. Good aspect of atheism = no hell

http://youtu.be/vu7XWgczC7o


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> funny, why dont you mention who it is?


if you read past the first post maybe you would know


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

sen.c said:


> LOL....................
> 
> Boy if this isn't a loaded question.
> 
> What would you precieve the bad aspects to be? Do you have any in mind are or you just baiting a good ole faith battle?


im not sure actually. i asked because i would really like to know. ive never heard a good argument for why atheism is a bad thing. as you can see, nobody seems to have one lol



woodsusa said:


> Bad aspect of atheism = no heaven. Good aspect of atheism = no hell
> 
> http://youtu.be/vu7XWgczC7o


nice lol


----------



## filtereye (Sep 9, 2011)

negative aspect = being close minded about the existence of a god/higher power, missing out on the benefits of spirituality. What I've learned is spirituality is a key aspect to being balanced.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 9, 2011)

I guess if I had to put something on the negative column strictly from a non biblical world view i would think that being athiest would mean that you are accountable to no one but yourself so they would have the tendency to care less about the people around them as long as they felt they were ok. With that being said though it all depends on the type person it is, being athiest doesn't mean you have no morals so you could still be a good person.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Respectfully disagree. "There is no tangible engaged godhead" is just as much a statement of faith as its opposite.


I agree. However atheists do not make this assertion. It is done outside and in addition to atheism. An atheist is simply a person who remains unconvinced by the theists argument. A person who outright claims the non-existence of god may be atheist by default, but is a fool by necessity. I remain unconvinced of bigfoot, that is not the same as saying he isn't out there.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

sen.c said:


> I guess if I had to put something on the negative column strictly from a non biblical world view i would think that being athiest would mean that you are accountable to no one but yourself so they would have the tendency to care less about the people around them as long as they felt they were ok. With that being said though it all depends on the type person it is, being athiest doesn't mean you have no morals so you could still be a good person.


I personally find this to have the opposite effect on me. I am accountable to myself, and I am strict in my convictions of what is right and wrong, therefore I am an unforgiving judge. I often find myself abstaining from spreading gossip and rumors, from stealing petty treasures, and from telling white lies simply because I do not stand for it. I can only speculate when I say that having a deity as a judge who forgives all sins accept non-belief would seem to offer an out. When I worked in a warehouse which dealt with goods like candy, I would often, daily, see good men who identified as Christians taking snickers bars and bags of chips when the boss wasn't looking. I can not say by any stretch that this was because god offered forgiveness. I can only say that I personally did not do these things because I would have a hard time living with myself. This is a result of my own personal filter which apparently is more effective than threat of retribution. I agree with you that both are really beside the point and it comes down to integrity. My grandpa was a devout christian and had the utmost integrity, but he did it in the glory of god and not to avoid endless punishment.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I agree. However atheists do not make this assertion. It is done outside and in addition to atheism. An atheist is simply a person who remains unconvinced by the theists argument. A person who outright claims the non-existence of god may be atheist by default, but is a fool by necessity. I remain unconvinced of bigfoot, that is not the same as saying he isn't out there.


Perhaps my definitions are wrong, or at least outside the norm. I have always believed/maintained that the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is the declarative statement "there is no god" and its many variants. If I follow that, I see myself as agnostic, "hard" category. By your def I am an atheist. Semantics, my brain, owie. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## sen.c (Sep 9, 2011)

> My grandpa was a devout christian and had the utmost integrity, but he did it in the glory of god and not to avoid endless punishment.


That is the only reason it should be done in my eyes. Salvation should not be a fire escape, sadly many people do it for the wrong reason and in the end I feel they may be suprised. 

In the end whether you believe or not it still comes down to a persons integrity and sometimes a person will lead people to believe they are something by wearing a false flag to benefit
from the things it may bring them.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

filtereye said:


> negative aspect = being close minded about the existence of a god/higher power, missing out on the benefits of spirituality. What I've learned is spirituality is a key aspect to being balanced.


its a truly amazing thing to ponder the universe and really see it for what it is in your minds eye. all of the processes that keep it going perform in such a way that i am always amazed. and the true mystery of it, at least in my opinion, cant be experienced if you believe that a god in the sky made it all. to me, that trivializes the universe

i agree with what you said, except the part about _needing_ it to be balanced. i see where youre comin from though. the benefits of spirituality can also be experienced in other ways that dont require a deity, such as meditation or drugs.



sen.c said:


> I guess if I had to put something on the negative column strictly from a non biblical world view i would think that being athiest would mean that you are accountable to no one but yourself so they would have the tendency to care less about the people around them as long as they felt they were ok. With that being said though it all depends on the type person it is, being athiest doesn't mean you have no morals so you could still be a good person.


that is true. people can be greedy at times. and i mean greedy loosely. most people live in their heads, mostly worried about themselves. they reach out to others either to benefit themselves later, or just out of the goodness of their heart. of course, these qualities can be taught without religion, and one does not _need_ religion in order to be a giving person. yes, most religions do promote giving to others. but this does not mean religion is the sole cause of this.
why cant we have a society where people are good to one another because we are all made of the same atoms? we are all essentially made of the same exact building materials. i do not think it is necessary to have an all-seeing god watching over us, forcing us to be good to one another. we can do it ourselves.
/rambling

thanks for the input guys


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Perhaps my definitions are wrong, or at least outside the norm. I have always believed/maintained that the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is the declarative statement "there is no god" and its many variants. If I follow that, I see myself as agnostic, "hard" category. By your def I am an atheist. Semantics, my brain, owie.
> cheers 'neer


atheism- answers the question "do you believe in a god?". answers are yes or no(belief, or lack of belief)

agnosticism- answers the question "can we know a god exists?". answers are yes or no(we can know, or we cant know)

you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 9, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> atheism- answers the question "do you believe in a god?". answers are yes or no(belief, or lack of belief)
> 
> agnosticism- answers the question "can we know a god exists?". answers are yes or no(we can know, or we cant know)
> 
> you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist


Goodness. If I don't know if I can know if there is a god - what does that make me? (Other than an obvious aficionado of recursive logic.)
cheers 'neer


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> again, what are the negative attributes of atheism? you said it would be easy. what are the bad things that atheism directly causes someone? we have direct connections between religion and evil. what about atheism?
> 
> edit: i would honestly love to know, just like heis would. if anyone can show us negative aspects of atheism, that will widen our views and show us new things. show us


 Well I guess I was wrong. There ya go, what u wanted to hear. Ha.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Goodness. If I don't know if I can know if there is a god - what does that make me? (Other than an obvious aficionado of recursive logic.)
> cheers 'neer


you would be an agnostic agnostic lol



Hepheastus420 said:


> Well I guess I was wrong. There ya go, what u wanted to hear. Ha.


i tip my hat to you


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> No, but I encourage you to point it out so that we can examine it.


Just google it, my iPod doesn't let me post links.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

> if you read past the first post maybe you would know




dont i just say the darndest things?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> dont i just say the darndest things?


Nope, ohhh I bet you guys didn't see that coming.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 9, 2011)

This was a great thread idea, Luger! I've always wondered how someone could rationally point out negatives of the absence of belief in a deity. Well, you put the opportunity out there and it seems that no one can. Maybe this thread will help dissipate that erroneous notion. When asked, 'what are the negative aspects of religion' we see dozens of pages of real world current and historical examples, but none here. Instead it served to clear up some misconceptions of what atheism really is. I think even the theists here can identify with our stance, after all, they are all atheists and skeptics (they don't believe in the hundreds of gods others believe in, and are skeptical of claims of gnomes, fairies, dragons, etc.) we just take this stance, to which we can all relate, a little further...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

^^^ funny how you always think you dudes are better and smrter then believers.

Its funny though i bet your dr is a believer, yet you go see em, i bet your wifes gyno is believer, will hinder his diagnosis? True ignorance on you are parts.


----------



## squarepush3r (Sep 10, 2011)

negative effects of athiem are, smoking cigarettes, wearing rimmed glasses and all black clothing, and generally residing in Europe


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> ^^^ funny how you always think you dudes are better and smrter then believers.
> 
> Its funny though i bet your dr is a believer, yet you go see em, i bet your wifes gyno is believer, will hinder his diagnosis? True ignorance on you are parts.


You are an atheist: you don't believe in Wotan and Ganesha

You are a skeptic: you don't find it credible to believe in gnomes or dragons or alien abduction (really not sure on this last one?)

What makes you think that you're better than the folks that do believe in these things? Hypocrite 

That was my Olywood impression for the evening! Good night, folks...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 10, 2011)

squarepush3r said:


> negative effects of athiem are, smoking cigarettes, wearing rimmed glasses and all black clothing, and generally residing in Europe


Hey, watch it! I still like Ayn Rand


----------



## nog (Sep 10, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> How can there be inherit negatives to atheism when atheism is just the failure of theism to provide a convincing argument? You can certainly find negative attributes that are often found among atheists, but these are not qualities that derive from or are unique to an atheistic stance. You can find negativity in the misrepresentation of atheism, as I'm sure this thread will demonstrate, but those are simply straw man arguments. You can say atheism prevents you from living in an afterlife paradise, but that is only so if religion is true. I am open to the idea that atheism could have negative aspects and am interested in having them pointed out, but I am guessing this thread will produce nothing but the mistaken opinions I just outlined.


well i reckon its just THEISM???


----------



## nog (Sep 10, 2011)

squarepush3r said:


> negative effects of athiem are, smoking cigarettes, wearing rimmed glasses and all black clothing, and generally residing in Europe


WTF is that supposed to mean? God didnt reach the usa to more than 1000 years after Europe. maybe its guys stuck up in prayer towers badley dressed in ill fitting, loud Checked clothing,fornicating and asking mugs to send them money whilst pretending to be Godly, if the USA is so fucking godly how come it has the biggest porno industry in the world???


----------



## nog (Sep 10, 2011)

you should stick to talking about weed FFS.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 10, 2011)

> maybe its guys stuck up in prayer towers badley dressed in ill fitting, loud Checked clothing,fornicating and asking mugs to send them money whilst pretending to be Godly


Sounds like they are just wolves in sheeps clothing taking advantage of good hearted people to me, you make the statement as if to asert that this is what christians do and it is not. They are just 
men who figured out if they put on a false front they can make millions, it doesn't make them christians just because they pretend to be.



> if the USA is so fucking godly how come it has the biggest porno industry in the world


I wouldn't go as far as saying that, porn and sexuality for that matter has been way more openly accepted in Europe and outlying countries for a long time and plays on tv. Just because they have the AVN awards here and the valley is the hub for adult films in the US doesn't really have anything to with acceptance on the broad scale.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 10, 2011)

So do atheists not believe in anything? Not even science? Or is it just you follow the facts.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So do atheists not believe in anything? Not even science? Or is it just you follow the facts.


The answer to that will be different for every person you ask. You can't infer what atheists believe, since the position of atheism tells you precisely one thing and one thing only about a person, which is what they don't believe. 

BTW someone who doesn't believe passionately about anything is called a nihilist.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 10, 2011)

So for you atheists that follow science then we can tell you negative things that come from that. For example nuclear weapons. 


Why do you guys think there is such a huge link between atheism and suicide?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

> The answer to that will be different for every person you ask.




you see, that is the hypocrisy i speak of... you all vouch for yourselves by saying, "the answer will be different for every person you ask" is the same thing about people who believe, yet you all continue to associate every believer with these retarded opinions about religion...

true hypocrites and if you all cant see that in yourselves, i dont know what to say for you


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

> Why do you guys think there is such a huge link between atheism and suicide?




cause they have no guidance and a weak mind. Take everything to seriously and think everyone hates them


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So for you atheists that follow science then we can tell you negative things that come from that. For example nuclear weapons.


Nuclear weapons could arguably be said to have had a positive effect as well as their negative ones. Nuclear theory offers us an option for sustained energy production beyond our fossil fuels. But your point is not lost, science can be used for evil. In fact, it can be used for great malevolent evil of the most cold hearted nature. But is this an evil that is inherit to science? Does the philosophy of science foster and encourage this evil? Does science have built in mechanism that discourage critical thought in relation to this evil? Does science ever inspire an otherwise good person to perform evil acts? In the context of religion, the answer to all these questions is yes.




> Why do you guys think there is such a huge link between atheism and suicide?


I don't think anyone has established this link between suicide and atheism. I welcome you to post concise objective studies demonstrating this link. In any case, if there is a link, could it be due to the discrimination and intolerance of atheists by religious people? Discrimination seems to be quite clearly a factor in the homosexuality suicide link.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Sep 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> cause they have no guidance and a weak mind. Take everything to seriously and think everyone hates them


 it almost sounds like society today...hmmmm


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So for you atheists that follow science then we can tell you negative things that come from that. For example nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> Why do you guys think there is such a huge link between atheism and suicide?


Hep do you know the ratio of athiests to believers within the group of scientist's that developed the nuclear bomb?


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 10, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Hep do you know the ratio of athiests to believers within the group of scientist's that developed the nuclear bomb?


Mexiblunt... love the avatar. We don't get much fog in New Mexico.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 10, 2011)

It's snow!  proly don't get that much either tho.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 10, 2011)

sometimes it snows in the desert... sometimes


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 10, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> It's snow!  proly don't get that much either tho.


I Live at an elevation of 5300 ft. We get plenty of snow.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 10, 2011)

Ahh ha! This page of the thread is a good exapmle of assumption making.  Not claiming this is all true but plausable. You assumed fog when it was snow, I assumed you thought it was fog cause your in NM and my name is mex, maybe I too was mexican or from mexico. (alot of ppl assume I'm mexican cause it says mex in my name). Then I assumed NM proly had "not much snow" not thinking of those elevations. Ohhh fun times! Yeah It was a huge snowstorm in way northern canada that I was driving thru at 2 miles per hour. I love going to mexico, so alot of my friends call me mexico.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 10, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Ahh ha! This page of the thread is a good exapmle of assumption making.  Not claiming this is all true but plausable. You assumed fog when it was snow, I assumed you thought it was fog cause your in NM and my name is mex, maybe I too was mexican or from mexico. (alot of ppl assume I'm mexican cause it says mex in my name). Then I assumed NM proly had "not much snow" not thinking of those elevations. Ohhh fun times! Yeah It was a huge snowstorm in way northern canada that I was driving thru at 2 miles per hour. I love going to mexico, so alot of my friends call me mexico.


hahaha thats great.
i also assumed you were mexican or from mexico. but when i read this post, i looked at your location and laughed


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 10, 2011)

Damn these brains of ours so quick on the draw we fool ourselves. I'm gonna fight back and hit the vape, maybe I can kill the assuming part of my brain.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 10, 2011)

just hold your breath for a long time


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 10, 2011)

I'm trying. Still not working. I can hold each and every breath for 1-2 minuits proly only breath 45 times in an hour, but the closer I get the more I assume it will proly kill me too.


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 10, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Ahh ha! This page of the thread is a good exapmle of assumption making.  Not claiming this is all true but plausable. You assumed fog when it was snow, I assumed you thought it was fog cause your in NM and my name is mex, maybe I too was mexican or from mexico. (alot of ppl assume I'm mexican cause it says mex in my name). Then I assumed NM proly had "not much snow" not thinking of those elevations. Ohhh fun times! Yeah It was a huge snowstorm in way northern canada that I was driving thru at 2 miles per hour. I love going to mexico, so alot of my friends call me mexico.


That wasn't the right assumption.  I figured your mexiblunt handle referred to mexican sativa. I saw in the location you were in Canada so I never assumed you were Mexican or in Mexico itself. *LOL*


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 11, 2011)

> In the context of religion, the answer to all these questions is yes.



that is the stupidest thing i have ever seen you post... and you have posted some very bias and hypocritical posts before... by your logic, then all religious people or followers of God will and always commit evil acts... pretty smart on your part... and i know, you are going to use the "you always misconstrue others words or your gay "oly says the darndests things" 

tell more about hitler or stalin and how their atheism and hatred towards religion and God followers really helped out society? Im pretty sure you will find something good to say about them...




> if there is a link, could it be due to the discrimination and intolerance of atheists by religious people?



really? again, you are a hypocrite and your logic fails you again... the same thing can be turned around and used for suicides within religious people...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 11, 2011)

why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 11, 2011)

I agree, by their logic, we should get rid of all humanity.

Again, believers triumph





Hepheastus420 said:


> I posted this on a different thread but I feel like it fits in more on this thread.
> 
> Heis everything has the potential to cause a negative impact. some examples:
> Music- it can cause depression or influence people into acting in a negative way.
> ...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 11, 2011)

* 




Originally Posted by Hepheastus420  
I posted this on a different thread but I feel like it fits in more on this thread.

Heis everything has the potential to cause a negative impact. some examples: 
Music- it can cause depression or influence people into acting in a negative way.
Movies- has the same potential as music.
School- a kid may be bullied and shoot up the place.
Those are just from the top of my head, my point is that it can be beneficial but it depends on how you use it. People don't want to eradicate music, movies, or school just because of the negative impact it can have on a person. So IMO religion shouldn't be hated to this degree either unless you want to start making threads to get rid of everything else in this world that has the potential to cause negativity.

Hey, Hep. I think this was probably answered in that other thread, but I'll answer again here: there is nothing inherent in music, movies or school that instructs one to kill or maim oneself or others. They may be a very small percentage of movies and music that do encourage these things, (I am not aware of them), but not the vast majority. The Abrahamic religions (judaism, islam, and christianity) all contain specific instructions to kill, maim, offer your daughter up for prostitution, enslave others, etc.. Your point is well made that almost anything can be used for negativity, also most religious folks don't follow these awful instructions of their holy books. But the danger of religion is that it posits that it is the infallible word of god, and instructs and encourages these horrible things. School, music and movies do not... 

*


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 11, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Sounds like they are just wolves in sheeps clothing taking advantage of good hearted people to me, you make the statement as if to asert that this is what christians do and it is not. They are just
> men who figured out if they put on a false front they can make millions, it doesn't make them christians just because they pretend to be.
> 
> I wouldn't go as far as saying that, porn and sexuality for that matter has been way more openly accepted in Europe and outlying countries for a long time and plays on tv. Just because they have the AVN awards here and the valley is the hub for adult films in the US doesn't really have anything to with acceptance on the broad scale.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

What does a 'true Christian' entail? How does one remain a 'true Christain' while actively sinning if you can just say 'he was never a Christian to begin with'? 

This is the third time I've brought this up with you, and I've seen Heis point it out twice. It's a logical fallacy. You can always just say "they were never TRUE Christians" after someone does something negative and gets caught. 

80% of the porn that is produced comes from Southern California, fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornographic_movie_studios


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yes there are things inherent in music and movies let's take metallicas kill them all. Hmm think about it kill them all, how is that not negative? There are plenty of movies that have negatively inspiring messages in them. Alot of rap songs talk about killing and prostitution and encourage people to act the same way. You cannot honestly say there is only a small percent of negative music. Just turn on the radio if you don't believe me. The vast majority of people where I live listen to the rap music I speak of and I live in Texas so I can't imagine how it is in other states. I'm not sure about Judaism and Islam belief (I do not follow them) but as far as I know about Christianity god and Jesus Do not teach us to kill or sell our daughters to prostitution. Can you show me where it says that Judaism and Islam teach to kill (like how Christians have the bible, can you show me where it says in their book?).


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yes there are things inherent in music and movies let's take metallicas kill them all. Hmm think about it kill them all, how is that not negative? There are plenty of movies that have negatively inspiring messages in them. Alot of rap songs talk about killing and prostitution and encourage people to act the same way. You cannot honestly say there is only a small percent of negative music. Just turn on the radio if you don't believe me. The vast majority of people where I live listen to the rap music I speak of and I live in Texas so I can't imagine how it is in other states. I'm not sure about Judaism and Islam belief (I do not follow them) but as far as I know about Christianity god and Jesus Do not teach us to kill or sell our daughters to prostitution. Can you show me where it says that Judaism and Islam teach to kill (like how Christians have the bible, can you show me where it says in their book?).


Here's a few examples from the Bible on what I am referring to:
Exodus 31:15 - Six days may work be done; but in the seventh _is_ the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth _any_ work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. - Instructions to kill tens of millions of Americans including you if you've ever been so foolish as to work on Sunday.

_If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst._ (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

*Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests*
_Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. _(Deuteronomy 17:12)

Kill Witches 
 _You should not let a sorceress live. _(Exodus 22:17)

*Kill Homosexuals*
_"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."_ (Leviticus 20:13)

*Kill Fortunetellers*
_A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death._ (Leviticus 20:27)

*Death for Hitting Dad*
_Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. _ (Exodus 21:15)

Death for Cursing Parents
 1) _If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness._ (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) _All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense._ (Leviticus 20:9)

*Death for Adultery*
_If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death._ (Leviticus 20:10)

*Death for Fornication *
_A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death._ (Leviticus 21:9)

*Death to Followers of Other Religions *
_ Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. _(Exodus 22:19)

*Kill Nonbelievers*
_ They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman._ (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

Kill False Prophets
 _ If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. _ (Zechariah 13:3)

*Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God*
_Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."_ (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)

*Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night*
_But if this charge is true _(that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night)_, and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst._ (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

*Kill Followers of Other Religions.*
1)_If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst._ (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)


Sorry for so many examples, it's just too easy. I could post dozens of more horrific biblical instructions, but there are thousands of sites you could visit with a quick Google search. The Torah is the Jewish holy book and is basically the Old Testament. The Qur'an has many awful passages (and esp. in the hadiths), again you can google them. 'Kill 'em All' wasn't a song, but the name of the 1983 album. I've looked through these lyrics and can't find instructions to kill anyone. I listen to a LOT of rap, and while some is full of violence, they are not telling ME to go do these things. But even if there is music giving negative instructions, it is not claiming to be the absolute perfect word of god. Very few will follow rappers' instructions to do violence to others, millions are likely to follow the absolute and perfect word of god (the bible's) instructions to do violence. I do not know how this can be stated any clearer...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Here's a few examples from the Bible on what I am referring to:
> Exodus 31:15 - Six days may work be done; but in the seventh _is_ the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth _any_ work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. - Instructions to kill tens of millions of Americans including you if you've ever been so foolish as to work on Sunday.
> 
> _If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst._ (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
> ...


Can you give scriptures from the new testament please? And alot of rap influences the younger generation to go around killing others because they are not in your gang and stuff like that. I know there is no song called kill them all by Metallica I was just talking about the cover it says well KILL them all seems pretty violent to me.
In the new testament Jesus tells us that there are only two commandments-
Mat 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 12, 2011)

I believe you are not naive, so i will go with retarded here. Are you retarded?

How does music not influence people to kill?


Find a murderer who solely used any of these scriptures you just quoted as an influence for their actions?

Yes, i know, you cant answer it so you will use your gay "oly says the darndests.things" hurt card..






tyler.durden said:


> Here's a few examples from the Bible on what I am referring to:
> Exodus 31:15 - Six days may work be done; but in the seventh _is_ the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth _any_ work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. - Instructions to kill tens of millions of Americans including you if you've ever been so foolish as to work on Sunday.
> 
> _If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst._ (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
> ...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Can you give scriptures from the new testament please? And alot of rap influences the younger generation to go around killing others because they are not in your gang and stuff like that. I know there is no song called kill them all by Metallica I was just talking about the cover it says well KILL them all seems pretty violent to me.
> In the new testament Jesus tells us that there are only two commandments-
> Mat 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
> 
> ...


Passages from the New Testament? Sure!

Matthew 10:34-38 
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

"Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ."
(Ephesians 6:5)
"Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colassians 3:22)
"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back ." (Titus 2:9)
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:1

I will post more if you wish, but again you can google 'terrible teachings of the New Testament' and get more hits than you need. I think that you are in denial, you haven't known of these awful things about your religion because you haven't looked for them. You wouldn't need to look very hard. Good christians like to cherry pick the pleasant passages of the bible, but leave the lion's share of it alone. I would, too, it's not very nice.

Back to the music thing: Well, if one were already in a gang, I don't think one would need music to tell them to kill someone in a rival gang. It's kinda what gangs do  Again, Kill 'Em All aren't instructions for anyone, and again (and again, and again, and again) even if things in pop culture are negative and violent, they don't claim to be the word of god. That is the difference, I know you can understand this...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Ok, now i know you are retarded with that last piece of your paragraph.


You are really funny though with the things you say





tyler.durden said:


> Passages from the New Testament? Sure!
> 
> Matthew 10:34-38
> "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 12, 2011)

People dont already need to be in a gang to be influenced by music to kill someone. You are demonstrating your construed vision of reality which to me is due to your atheist beliefs. 






tyler.durden said:


> Passages from the New Testament? Sure!
> 
> Matthew 10:34-38
> "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Tell me non believers, you all do not believe in imaginary things right, so you all must also think there are no borders between cities, counties, states or countries cause they are imaginary lines that change with time as well.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Ok, now i know you are retarded with that last piece of your paragraph.
> 
> 
> You are really funny though with the things you say


Oly says the darndest things. Well, at least you brought something to the table this time... Wait a minute, no you didn't  Feels like deja vu, no?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Can you give scriptures from the new testament please? And alot of rap influences the younger generation to go around killing others because they are not in your gang and stuff like that. I know there is no song called kill them all by Metallica I was just talking about the cover it says well KILL them all seems pretty violent to me.


Moving the goalpost. 

We demonstrated that the bible clearly advocates murder. Now your position is that these aren't from the correct parts of the bible? So some parts of the bible are worthy of criticism and others are not? Who decides which is which? Do you think all people reading the bible will get the impression that the direct and undeniable commands to kill should not be followed? History shows us that many people take these commands seriously.

The difference between music and scripture is that people do not believe following the commands of music will lead to salvation, or that ignoring those commands ensures eternal torment. Kill em all may be a violent statment, and bands like slayer, gwar and Kat are much more so, but we can see here Jesus was not without violence himself.

One thing that is clear in the new testament is that if you are a non believer, you will be set on fire and burned forever. That is clearly a sentiment that encourages malevolence.

Now, Atheism, which is simply the application of skepticism to the claim of god, offers none of these things. There are no commands to be misconstrued. There are are no eternal consequences one way or the other. There is no evil that can be born of and is unique to the ideology of skepticism.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Passages from the New Testament? Sure!
> 
> Matthew 10:34-38
> "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "
> ...


Have you read the bible? If you read the chapters you would understand that you can't take singular verses out and expect them to make sense. 
Like to explain the first verse you posted he means that he has come to defeat evil and work against evil. When you work against evil you may have conflicting ideas with others, hence the turning against family. He doesn't literally mean to cause you to have a sword fight with your family. Honestly sometimes I don't trust what they write down in the bible so I just try to avoid doing bad things and love people. After all the bible was written by man. 

Personally I like Metallica and many bands but common man your trying to tell me that the music industry doesn't have a huge influence on the youth?


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> People dont already need to be in a gang to be influenced by music to kill someone. You are demonstrating your construed vision of reality which to me is due to your atheist beliefs.


I thought a wrote enough 'and agains' in that post for even the feeblest of minds to comprehend, but apparently not...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Moving the goalpost.
> 
> We demonstrated that the bible clearly advocates murder. Now your position is that these aren't from the correct parts of the bible? So some parts of the bible are worthy of criticism and others are not? Who decides which is which? Do you think all people reading the bible will get the impression that the direct and undeniable commands to kill should not be followed? History shows us that many people take these commands seriously.
> 
> ...


 Yeah but we are imagining that religion no longer exists so music can't be compared to religion in this fake world we are imagining. So if everyone was atheist music could still be used in a negative fashion.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> I thought a wrote enough 'and agains' in that post for even the feeblest of minds to comprehend, but apparently not...


I'm not saying that music claims to be the word of god. My whole point was that if you want to get rid of religion because of the negativity it causes then you should want to get rid of anything that causes negativity. You guys ignore the positive sides of religion so you should be pessimistic towards everything, unless of course it is purely beneficial.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> I thought a wrote enough 'and agains' in that post for even the feeblest of minds to comprehend, but apparently not...


Don't think that my mind is feeble when you can't even comprehend my point of view on the subject.

There is no need for personal attacks. I have not insulted you and if I have I appologize sincerely.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Ok, now i know you are retarded with that last piece of your paragraph.
> 
> 
> You are really funny though with the things you say


you cant ignore the truth of how racist and prejudice the bible is, but i guess the stupider you are the more you can ignore

the book you swear to live by is mean and judgmental not my higher power, all you fundamental Christians are hypocritical if you cant see the negativity used to describe the control organized religoin has on its believers

i am god, i am jessus and so are you, the power to create destroy and forgive is within use all.

dont sell yourselves short, and i do believe in god just not the vindictive and judgmental god that makes people condemn, beat up or kill those not like them

i "turn the other cheep" my friend you should too


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I'm not saying that music claims to be the word of god. My whole point was that if you want to get rid of religion because of the negativity it causes then you should want to get rid of anything that causes negativity. You guys ignore the positive sides of religion so you should be pessimistic towards everything, unless of course it is purely beneficial.


Defending religion because of it's few perceived benefits against the vast majority of it's awfulness reminds me of a Joker quote from the first Batman movie: "Now you fellas have said some pretty mean things. Some of which _were _true, under that fiend Boss Grissom. He was a thief, and a terrorist. On the other hand, he had a tremendous singing voice..."


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Have you read the bible? If you read the chapters you would understand that you can't take singular verses out and expect them to make sense.


There seem to be a lot of implied and unstated rules about following the bible. If I am living on a remote island with my tribe and the bible washes up, how am I to know these nuanced guidelines? Whats to stop me from believing that I can't get into heaven unless I kill sinners? Certainly not scripture.

If religion does good or bad is beside the point. The problem is, it's simply untrue, and the nature of the claims and commands within would seem to demand that any moral person be absolutely sure of it's validity before following it.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> There seem to be a lot of implied and unstated rules about following the bible. If I am living on a remote island with my tribe and the bible washes up, how am I to know these nuanced guidelines? Whats to stop me from believing that I can't get into heaven unless I kill sinners? Certainly not scripture.
> 
> If religion does good or bad is beside the point. The problem is, it's simply untrue, and the nature of the claims and commands within would seem to demand that any moral person be absolutely sure of it's validity before following it.


 Well to understand these guidelines you have to order one of my "guidelines of the bible" books.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> There seem to be a lot of implied and unstated rules about following the bible. If I am living on a remote island with my tribe and the bible washes up, how am I to know these nuanced guidelines? Whats to stop me from believing that I can't get into heaven unless I kill sinners? Certainly not scripture.
> 
> If religion does good or bad is beside the point. The problem is, it's simply untrue, and the nature of the claims and commands within would seem to demand that any moral person be absolutely sure of it's validity before following it.


 Listen heis I'm sorry that (in your opinion) religion causes us to think unrationally but maybe that's a good thing. Maybe simple times are better than finding out how to make more dangerous weapons and such.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Don't think that my mind is feeble when you can't even comprehend my point of view on the subject.


Hep, that wasn't directed toward you, but aimed at Oly (see my reply with quote on that post). I see your point very clearly, which is there are other negative influences beside religion. My point is that they cannot be as influential as christianity, perhaps because those other influences don't promise eternal life if you comply, and don't threaten to set you on fire if you don't...


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Listen heis I'm sorry that (in your opinion) religion causes us to think unrationally but maybe that's a good thing. Maybe simple times are better than finding out how to make more dangerous weapons and such.


i am not attacking you but if you are not sure if rational thinking i ok then you have a lot more to question then religion, to tell you the truth their is so mcuh more i want to say but i dot have the vocabulary to explain it

maybe look up in the dictionary what the word rational means to start


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Listen heis I'm sorry that (in your opinion) religion causes us to think unrationally but maybe that's a good thing. Maybe simple times are better than finding out how to make more dangerous weapons and such.


Or finding cures for major diseases, or discovering the laws of physics, or freeing slaves, or liberating women, or using electricity, or inventing toilet paper...

"Well I say there are things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Defending religion because of it's few perceived benefits against the vast majority of it's awfulness reminds me of a Joker quote from the first Batman movie: "Now you fellas have said some pretty mean things. Some of which _were _true, under that fiend Boss Grissom. He was a thief, and a terrorist. On the other hand, he had a tremendous singing voice..."


If I was atheist I would give you a rep for that cuz that is a hilarious way to say how religious people defend religion. Bro honestly I can't fully trust the bible. These people that talk about god raiding towns and such could have just said they "heard god" in their head. And of course these people thought unrationally and followed that person. The bible contradicts itself many times so it can't be the full word of god. I choose to just follow peace and be like Christ hence the whole Christian (Christ like) thing. You can go through all the words of Christ and find no evil teaching (I think, ha) but when people raid towns their excuse is that they heard god say it when they were dreaming or on the verge of death so they could be lying or read too much into their dream. Idk I'm just gonna be christ like.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Hep, that wasn't directed toward you, but aimed at Oly (see my reply with quote on that post). I see your point very clearly, which is there are other negative influences beside religion. My point is that they cannot be as influential as christianity, perhaps because those other influences don't promise eternal life if you comply, and don't threaten to set you on fire if you don't...


 Yes yes good uncompleted debate bro. May we continue on how if religion is eradicated then music should follow?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Or finding cures for major diseases, or discovering the laws of physics, or freeing slaves, or liberating women, or using electricity, or inventing toilet paper...
> 
> "Well I say there are things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders


Yeah I like my toilet paper, ha. But EVERYTHING has negative sides so why is there so many prejudice thoughts towards religion?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Or finding cures for major disease, or discovering the laws of physics, or freeing slaver, or liberating women, or using electricity, or inventing toilet paper...



If you dont already know, and i am sure most do, religion is about control, some people arent able to make decisions without a set of guidelines that contradict each other to live by

the bible also says all animals and plants are ours to use but devout Christen's still think MJ will make their daughters sleep with ethnic people and their sons will steal and rob and rape

it is stupidity on the highest and most excepted level, but who cares about injustice until it kills a majority of an ethnic group or cause the deforestation on the world or some other horrible instinse that effects the world


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Listen heis I'm sorry that (in your opinion) religion causes us to think unrationally but maybe that's a good thing. Maybe simple times are better than finding out how to make more dangerous weapons and such.


Maybe, but I don't personally subscribe to the idea that ignorance is preferable to knowledge. That dormancy is better than progress. I do not think it's okay to be told substantial claims that govern my eternal well being and demand prejudice and intolerance without verification. As for weapons, there will always be someone somewhere developing them. Knowledge can help us defend against them, whereas ignorance can only ensure our weakness. We would also have to give up any medical advances, which i'm sure you appreciate if not for yourself, for your family. Would you be willing to let a loved one die over a medical complication when a procedure could help them live another 10 years, just for the sake of simplicity? You benefit from and covet progress in your everyday routine from the clothes you wear to the food you eat, so asserting that progress should be halted in the area of religion would seem contradictory.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> If you dont already know, and i am sure most do, religion is about control, some people arent able to make decisions without a set of guidelines that contradict each other to live by
> 
> the bible also says all animals and plants are ours to use but devout Christen's still think MJ will make their daughters sleep with ethnic people and their sons will steal and rob and rape
> 
> it is stupidity on the highest and most excepted level, but who cares about injustice until it kills a majority of an ethnic group or cause the deforestation on the world or some other horrible instinse that effects the world


You're late on that party bro. We have already stated that those people are hypocrites and are not to be grouped together with all the other religious people.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yes yes good uncompleted debate bro. May we continue on how if religion is eradicated then music should follow?


*Music should not be eradicated because it does not promise eternal life if you comply, and doesn't threaten to set you on fire if you don't...
*


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah I like my toilet paper, ha. But EVERYTHING has negative sides so why is there so many prejudice thoughts towards religion?


when a group of individuals is brougth together so that they can be lied to in order to control thier actions and thoughts for a financial/egotistical gain . .. . .. . . . name any cult oh i mean organized religion that doenst operate by control and fear and then educate me on why their is still a debate about the negativity or positivity of religion


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Maybe, but I don't personally subscribe to the idea that ignorance is preferable to knowledge. That dormancy is better than progress. I do not think it's okay to be told substantial claims that govern my eternal well being and demand prejudice and intolerance without verification. As for weapons, there will always be someone somewhere developing them. Knowledge can help us defend against them, whereas ignorance can only ensure our weakness. We would also have to give up any medical advances, which i'm sure you appreciate if not for yourself, for your family. Would you be willing to let a loved one die over a medical complication when a procedure could help them live another 10 years, just for the sake of simplicity? You benefit from and covet progress in your everyday routine from the clothes you wear to the food you eat, so asserting that progress should be halted in the area of religion would seem contradictory.


 yeah I must admit I appreciate science (which I have said like 10 times). Do you want to know something heis? I have been playing the ignorant person when it comes to the benefits of science (which I'm sure you noticed, for example all the times I bring up nuclear weapons) to make a point that many atheists are ignorant to the benefits of religion. Atheists can look on the bad side of religion just like we can look on the bad side of science. I do not agree with either of the two (only looking at the bad side of science or only looking at the bad side of religion). It would be amazing if we could get rid of everything negative about science and religion but we both know that won't happen. I really do appreciate science and hope they advance and I really do hope that people will stop using religion to justify their negative actions.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> when a group of individuals is brougth together so that they can be lied to in order to control thier actions and thoughts for a financial/egotistical gain . .. . .. . . . name any cult oh i mean organized religion that doenst operate by control and fear and then educate me on why their is still a debate about the negativity or positivity of religion


Bro you seriously are late to the party. I have stated I don't agree with organized religion so you're arguing with the wrong person.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 12, 2011)

you have a good argument heph, but your argument relies on the lies, that religion has any positive benefits and when science has made life easier as it has it is not needed any more to promote common sense or bigotry


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> *Music should not be eradicated because it does not promise eternal life if you comply, and doesn't threaten to set you on fire if you don't...
> *


I understand that bro, ok let's imagine religion has been eradicated for 100 years. Are you following me? (I'm sorry if I sound like a dick for that is not my intention) Now then we won't compare music to religion anymore. So here we are 100 years in the future and I'm some random guy that is trying to stop violence. I'm gonna stop here so that we can set the scenario and I'm gonna act like we didn't just finish talking about religion. Just follow me I will get to my point soon.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Bro you seriously are late to the party. I have stated I don't agree with organized religion so you're arguing with the wrong person.





Hepheastus420 said:


> yeah I must admit I appreciate science (which I have said like 10 times). Do you want to know something heis? I have been playing the ignorant person when it comes to the benefits of science (which I'm sure you noticed, for example all the times I bring up nuclear weapons) to make a point that many atheists are ignorant to the benefits of religion. Atheists can look on the bad side of religion just like we can look on the bad side of science. I do not agree with either of the two (only looking at the bad side of science or only looking at the bad side of religion). It would be amazing if we could get rid of everything negative about science and religion but we both know that won't happen. I really do appreciate science and hope they advance and I really do hope that people will stop using religion to justify their negative actions.


my bad as usual, 

but i just dont see any point in playing debate about religion, for the most part its all negative, and playing devils advocate just seems . .. . .. . . .. .childish . .. . you seem educated or at least able to have an opinoin and back it up but why argue any point in religoins?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> you have a good argument heph, but it all relies on lies that religion has any positive benefits and when science has made life easier as it has it is not needed any more to promote common sense or bigotry


Well first off thanks bro for the compliment. Second off why are we even talking about science, ha? I like science and I try learning more about it everyday. And I appreciate science alot for it has brought forth many benefits. But onto religion I believe it has benefits. At least in my world it has. Don't base everything I have stated before on the example I'm about to provide (pretty much please don't use it against me later). My cousin was has a horrible father and he literally wanted to kill him and commit suicide. The way I got him out of this mess was I went to my bible and looked up scriptures of peace and I interpreted them so that he could understand what the hell I was trying to tell him. Anyways he thought that what I was saying is so true and I told him I didn't come up with the things I was telling him but the bible did (keep in mind I do not care to convert him) so he asks me to borrow it. I of course give it to him. Long story short, he is now more calm and has moved out and thanks me often for showing him the bible and it's teachings. IDK if how I helped him is directly related to the bible or not but I don't see a problem if religion has that kind of benefit.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> yeah I must admit I appreciate science (which I have said like 10 times). Do you want to know something heis? I have been playing the ignorant person when it comes to the benefits of science (which I'm sure you noticed, for example all the times I bring up nuclear weapons) to make a point that many atheists are ignorant to the benefits of religion. Atheists can look on the bad side of religion just like we can look on the bad side of science. I do not agree with either of the two (only looking at the bad side of science or only looking at the bad side of religion). It would be amazing if we could get rid of everything negative about science and religion but we both know that won't happen. I really do appreciate science and hope they advance and I really do hope that people will stop using religion to justify their negative actions.


Pretense is a poor way to make a point. What you are missing is that your examples of negative aspects are not equal when it comes to science and religion. Science offers the same negative aspects as anything. Nuclear theory can be used to make weapons or cheap efficient energy. Religion also has these negative aspects involving application. In short, practically everything has the potential to be misused. This is the fault of the mis-users, not the fault of religion or science. The evil lies within the person, a good person does not misuse these things.

Our point is that in addition to this, religion also offers a unique potential for evil that does not require misuse. A person can murder, be prejudice, advocate torture, ect and still be following scripture. This person does not need to be evil. A good person can engage in evil acts in the name of religion without misusing religion at all. It is only the context born from your own morality that causes you to use religion in a responsible way, a way that is contradictory to much of it's teachings. What the state of the world shows us is that people are more than happy to use religion to fuel intolerance, torture and murder, in fact, many times they feel it is their god given duty, and they are technically not misusing the teachings at all. Those that choose to take a passive approach to religious worship still serve to foster extremism and manipulation.

What we are asking, because we genuinely want to know, is if an atheistic stance also has this added potential for evil.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I understand that bro, ok let's imagine religion has been eradicated for 100 years. Are you following me? (I'm sorry if I sound like a dick for that is not my intention) Now then we won't compare music to religion anymore. So here we are 100 years in the future and I'm some random guy that is trying to stop violence. I'm gonna stop here so that we can set the scenario and I'm gonna act like we didn't just finish talking about religion. Just follow me I will get to my point soon.


Interesting. Who do I get to be in this play? I wanna be a cyborg that fights crime in post apocalyptic USA  Maybe we could team up...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> my bad as usual,
> 
> but i just dont see any point in playing debate about religion, for the most part its all negative, and playing devils advocate just seems . .. . .. . . .. .childish . .. . you seem educated or at least able to have an opinoin and back it up but why argue any point in religoins?


 If your saying that I am smart enough to think more rationally than I do(in your opinion) then thanks again. I just simply believe there is a god and enjoy looking towards Jesus as an example (kinda like what would Jesus do, ha), therefore I follow my religion. But see the thing is that I believe religion doesn't cause any negativity in my life so it's all just positive, at least for me. I do however understand that alot of people abuse religion or use it to justify their negative actions. I would like to say that I do not agree with them and hope that they actually drop their religion since it just causes to much negativity in their own lives. Besides if their killing in the name of their god or anything else negative then most likely they are being hypocrites. Unless they are worshiping an evil god then that person is evil no matter what.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Interesting...


Hey guys how can we get rid of music? I want to get rid if music because my own son has been listening to alot of lip Wayne and is becoming more and more depressed and rebelious everyday. I believe that the music industry has too much influence over our youth. It teaches them too rebel against us. I mean lil Wayne is his and a large majority of his friends idol but check these lyrics out.
A young nigga screaming fuck the world and let 'em die
Behind tints, tryna' duck the world and smoking rie
Got my bandanna 'round my head and pants to my feet
And got my eyes fire red and glock on my seat
I'm tryna' stay under intoxication
'Cause I lost my father, and got a daughter, plus I'm on probation
I'm drinking liquor like it's water, getting pissy drunk
And staying away from them lil' broads that trying to give me some
I keep a chopper in the trunk and my heat on my wasteline
Ducking the law, 'cause I ain't tryna' do no FED time
Sometimes I just wish I could be away
But I gotta take care of Reginae and keep macita straight
So I just maintain the struggle and I keep trying
But how can I when my closest people keep dyin'
I ain't lying that the law tryna' bust my clique
But I scream fuck the world man, I'm too young for this


These are very negative lyrics and I do not appreciate them. I believe we should kick music off of shows like MTV. What is your opinion on this?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> If your saying that I am smart enough to think more rationally than I do(in your opinion) then thanks again. I just simply believe there is a god and enjoy looking towards Jesus as an example (kinda like what would Jesus do, ha), therefore I follow my religion. But see the thing is that I believe religion doesn't cause any negativity in my life so it's all just positive, at least for me. I do however understand that alot of people abuse religion or use it to justify their negative actions. I would like to say that I do not agree with them and hope that they actually drop their religion since it just causes to much negativity in their own lives. Besides if their killing in the name of their god or anything else negative then most likely they are being hypocrites. Unless they are worshiping an evil god then that person is evil no matter what.


You make a great point here. The idea of god and the desire to worship him, although could have the potential to be misused, does not have the added potential of evil that dogmatic religion has. For you, the idea of god gives you many positive things. You select parts of the bible that you feel helps you understand your relationship with god, and ignore those parts that you feel encourage evil. This is what I have been trying to promote all along. I extend skepticism consistently throughout my thinking so my personal conclusion is the claim of god has no support. I encourage, but do not demand that you come to the same conclusion, and am completely happy to tolerate your conclusion that god is real, and live in peace with you. It is not until your certainty evolves into a structure that entails cruelty and forbids dispute that I have a problem tolerating it.

In short, I feel faith is grounded in error and gives false ideas, but is tolerable on a individual level. I feel dogmatic adherence to ideology which condemns critical analysis leads to cruelty, therefore is intolerable and should be eradicated. This applies to not only religious doctrine, but any ideology.

Incidentally, I would be happy to discuss the negative aspects of music and it's influence but you should start a thread just for the topic, as it derails the topic here.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Pretense is a poor way to make a point. What you are missing is that your examples of negative aspects are not equal when it comes to science and religion. Science offers the same negative aspects as anything. Nuclear theory can be used to make weapons or cheap efficient energy. Religion also has these negative aspects involving application. In short, practically everything has the potential to be misused. This is the fault of the mis-users, not the fault of religion or science. The evil lies within the person, a good person does not misuse these things.
> 
> Our point is that in addition to this, religion also offers a unique potential for evil that does not require misuse. A person can murder, be prejudice, advocate torture, ect and still be following scripture. This person does not need to be evil. A good person can engage in evil acts in the name of religion without misusing religion at all. It is only the context born from your own morality that causes you to use religion in a responsible way, a way that is contradictory to much of it's teachings. What the state of the world shows us is that people are more than happy to use religion to fuel intolerance, torture and murder, in fact, many times they feel it is their god given duty, and they are technically not misusing the teachings at all. Those that choose to take a passive approach to religious worship still serve to foster extremism and manipulation.
> 
> What we are asking, because we genuinely want to know, is if an atheistic stance also has this added potential for evil.


 Like I've stated everything has the potential for evil. Once again let's take nuclear research it can be used for it's benefits. It can also be used to defend us in a war. But it's ok for us to nuke small towns? The us military thinks it's all right to use nuclear research to kill many people at once even if they are innocent. It's perfectly legal so the military doesn't have to illegally misuse it. So yes science has the same potential evil as religion. Because just like religion science requires a good sense of morality to use it for good. It is also legal for science to kill many innocent victims in a nuclear warfare. A good person in the military does not misuse nuclear weapons because they are simply defending our country but while doing this he is killing many people some good and some bad. In our moral minds he is a hero but in reality he is a killer. In religion those people that believe it's ok to kill in the name of their god is a hero to the other religious followers but in reality he is a killer. See the similarity?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Interesting. Who do I get to be in this play? I wanna be a cyborg that fights crime in post apocalyptic USA  Maybe we could team up...


Yeah we are all cyborgs. I'm gonna play the guy that works alone, but I slowly warm up to you.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You make a great point here. The idea of god and the desire to worship him, although could have the potential to be misused, does not have the added potential of evil that dogmatic religion has. For you, the idea of god gives you many positive things. You select parts of the bible that you feel helps you understand your relationship with god, and ignore those parts that you feel encourage evil. This is what I have been trying to promote all along. I extend skepticism consistently throughout my thinking so my personal conclusion is the claim of god has no support. I do not demand that you come to the same conclusion, and am completely happy to tolerate your conclusion that god is real, and live in peace with you. It is not until your certainty evolves into a structure that entails cruelty and forbids dispute that I have a problem tolerating it.
> 
> In short, I feel faith is grounded in error and gives false ideas, but is tolerable on a individual level. I feel dogmatic adherence to ideology which condemns critical analysis leads to cruelty, therefore is intolerable and should be eradicated. This applies to not only religious doctrine, but any ideology.
> 
> Incidentally, I would be happy to discuss the negative aspects of music and it's influence but you should start a thread just for the topic, as it derails the topic here.


agreed now let's go smoke some good herb and think about what else we can use science to benefit ourselves.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey guys how can we get rid of music? I want to get rid if music because my own son has been listening to alot of lip Wayne and is becoming more and more depressed and rebelious everyday. I believe that the music industry has too much influence over our youth. It teaches them too rebel against us. I mean lil Wayne is his and a large majority of his friends idol but check these lyrics out.
> A young nigga screaming fuck the world and let 'em die
> Behind tints, tryna' duck the world and smoking rie
> Got my bandanna 'round my head and pants to my feet
> ...


Alright whenever I stop like this you are supposed to play along and tell me what you think about my idea.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Like I've stated everything has the potential for evil. Once again let's take nuclear research it can be used for it's benefits. It can also be used to defend us in a war. But it's ok for us to nuke small towns? The us military thinks it's all right to use nuclear research to kill many people at once even if they are innocent. It's perfectly legal so the military doesn't have to illegally misuse it. So yes science has the same potential evil as religion. Because just like religion science requires a good sense of morality to use it for good. It is also legal for science to kill many innocent victims in a nuclear warfare. A good person in the military does not misuse nuclear weapons because they are simply defending our country but while doing this he is killing many people some good and some bad. In our moral minds he is a hero but in reality he is a killer. In religion those people that believe it's ok to kill in the name of their god is a hero to the other religious followers but in reality he is a killer. See the similarity?


This thread is not concerned with the potential misuse of anything. We are focused on the inherit negative aspects to atheism and in contrast religion. Inherit meaning unique to the ideology, not the generic potential for misuse that is shared by everything. I know I will not misuse atheism. The question is, could my skeptical stance cause me to do evil even if I do not misuse it? We know this is a danger of religion, and are wondering if the same is true of skepticism, particularly atheism.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> This thread is not concerned with the potential misuse of anything. We are focused on the inherit negative aspects to atheism and in contrast religion. Inherit meaning unique to the ideology, not the generic potential for misuse that is shared by everything. I know I will not misuse atheism. The question is, could my atheistic stance cause me to do evil even if I do not misuse it? We know this is a danger of religion, and are wondering if the same is true of skepticism, particularly atheism.


 The answer to your question is yes. Like the example I used earlier, a man in the military is not misusing nuclear research when he nukes a small town, yet he still kills innocent victims in doing so. Actually he is considered a hero. I'm not sure about you but killing innocent people seems pretty evil to me.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> The answer to your question is yes. Like the example I used earlier, a man in the military is not misusing nuclear research when he nukes a small town, yet he still kills innocent victims in doing so. Actually he is considered a hero. I'm not sure about you but killing innocent people seems pretty evil to me.


I think we disagree on what constitutes misuse. To me, using knowledge to kill innocent people is a misuse. If they are innocent, then it is murder, and not defense. I don't believe that science, in simply providing this knowledge, used a process which encourages it to be used for murder. Remember, science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. How the results are used is determined by the morality of those using it. What we want to know is if the ideology itself, the process of learning about nature, harbors inherit evil, as the process of leaning about god via religion does.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I think we disagree on what constitutes misuse. To me, using knowledge to kill innocent people is a misuse. If they are innocent, then it is murder, and not defense. I don't believe that science, in simply providing this knowledge, used a process which encourages it to be used for murder. Remember, science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. How the results are used is determined by the morality of those using it. What we want to know is if the ideology itself, the process of learning about nature, harbors inherit evil, as the process of leaning about god via religion does.


Remember heis, science can't just ignore the negative aspects of it. This man would be considered a hero if he killed one crazed nazi. But people would just ignore the 50 other innocent people that were inthe way. In society using nuclear weapons is not misuse and you can't just cross that out and say that science still doesn't have a misuse just because you don't want to acknowledge that fact. (sorry if my post sounds angry or dickish  )


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Remember heis, science can't just ignore the negative aspects of it. This man would be considered a hero if he killed one crazed nazi. But *people would just ignore the 50 other innocent people* that were inthe way.


Is the problem here science? Did the scientific method encourage the death of these 50 people? What if we gave them nuclear reactors instead? Does evil still exist due to science?



> In society using nuclear weapons is not misuse and you can't just cross that out and say that *science still doesn't have a misuse* just because you don't want to acknowledge that fact. (sorry if my post sounds angry or dickish  )


Well what I said is that science _does_ have misuses, like anything. I said the scope of this thread is not concerned with misuse, as the possibility for misuse is a trait shared by practically anything. That is not to say science or people should not be concerned with the misuse of knowledge, only to say that is a topic for another thread. I also acknowledged that this type of evil, misuse of religion, is not the fault of religion at all. 

An example of misuse of religion would be evangelists that take old peoples money and leave them to live in poverty. As much as we can find evil commands in scripture, no where does it say to scam old people for their money, so this is a misuse. I am careful not to criticize religious ideology for this misuse, just as you should be careful not to criticize science for similar misuse.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Is the problem here science? Did the scientific method encourage the death of these 50 people? What if we gave them nuclear reactors instead? Does evil still exist due to science?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Alright I'm tired and blazed and confused, ha. But I think I get what you're saying now. IMO you're saying that people misuse religion (I agree) and you're saying that people misuse science (I agree) so what is it that we are debating over? Oh yeah, honestly I can't think of anything that causes a good person to do bad things from science. But can you explain to me where in religion a good person does bad things but is still considered good? But remember we pointed out that people that kill are actually bad and no longer good.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Ok heis, what about the medical reseaech hitler would do on pow's? This athiesitic driven scientific research was done in the name of nazi science, yet it still is science and they followed the scientific method that you mentioned.

This is science driven by hatred towards religious jewish people. The atrocities they did are a prime examplle of atheisms negative aspect of hatred.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Ok heis, what about the medical reseaech hitler would do on pow's? This athiesitic driven scientific research was done in the name of nazi science, yet it still is science and they followed the scientific method that you mentioned.
> 
> This is science driven by hatred towards religious jewish people. The atrocities they did are a prime examplle of atheisms negative aspect of hatred.


i thought they were a perfect example of the negativity of the human race hardly something you blame on atheism...

and your having to dig quite far back for any sort of result there 65+ years ago?

i wonder just how many i could pull up agaisnt religion for last 10 years ..?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> If your saying that I am smart enough to think more rationally than I do(in your opinion) then thanks again. I just simply believe there is a god and enjoy looking towards Jesus as an example (kinda like what would Jesus do, ha), therefore I follow my religion.


why not just treat people right by yourself? why do you need jesus to tell you how to do it?



> But see the thing is that I believe religion doesn't cause any negativity in my life so it's all just positive, at least for me.


religion changed your life on 9/11. your political system is totally controlled by religion.
it may be positive to you because you only follow selected parts of the bible, dont go to church, and actually know some things about science. but a lot of people in the world dont. they can follow any parts of the bible their culture sees fit. if its the stuff that allows them to kill sinners/unbelievers, so be it. they go to churches(and the like) to be told what the sciptures mean. and the majority of people in the world know almost nothing about science, but they know god did it all. crazy, right?



> I do however understand that alot of people abuse religion or use it to justify their negative actions.


not only is it justification, but they usually see the actions as righteous too. they must do it because god wants it.



> I would like to say that I do not agree with them and hope that they actually drop their religion since it just causes to much negativity in their own lives.


they believe in their religion just like you do. would it be easy for you to just quit your religion? we have shown you all these negative things your religion creates, yet you still believe. why should they?

they dont see those negatives as coming from their religion. they see the religion as stopping more harm from coming to them. this makes them believe whole-heartedly, and causes them to take drastic actions to please god, and hopefully bring more positive to their life. by committing these actions(killing, etc.), the person thinks they are actually creating peace because the person being killed is a sinner and god wants them dead. there is a lot of psychology involved.



> Besides if their killing in the name of their god or anything else negative then most likely they are being hypocrites. Unless they are worshiping an evil god then that person is evil no matter what.


how are they hypocrites? their holy book is TELLING THEM to kill sinners(for example).
someone does not have to be evil to worship an 'evil god'. it all depends on where they were born and how they were taught. also, what dictates what is evil or not? there are MANY 'evil' things in the bible, yet a lot of people would say im crazy for saying that.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey guys how can we get rid of music? I want to get rid if music because my own son has been listening to alot of lip Wayne and is becoming more and more depressed and rebelious everyday. I believe that the music industry has too much influence over our youth. It teaches them too rebel against us. I mean lil Wayne is his and a large majority of his friends idol but check these lyrics out.
> A young nigga screaming fuck the world and let 'em die
> Behind tints, tryna' duck the world and smoking rie
> Got my bandanna 'round my head and pants to my feet
> ...


again, lil wayne isnt telling people they must commit those acts or something bad will happen. music is an art form and should be viewed as such. a painting of someone stabbing someone else does not make you want to kill someone


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 12, 2011)

By your logic, then you should side by believers. Atheists have to dig into the bible which goes back thoudands of years.

Im not blaming their atheism, just pointing out major atheists in our past history. While these athrists arguing here always turn the other cheek when asked the aforementioned questions





ginjawarrior said:


> i thought they were a perfect example of the negativity of the human race hardly something you blame on atheism...
> 
> and your having to dig quite far back for any sort of result there 65+ years ago?
> 
> i wonder just how many i could pull up agaisnt religion for last 10 years ..?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Ok heis, what about the medical reseaech hitler would do on pow's? This athiesitic driven scientific research was done in the name of nazi science, yet it still is science and they followed the scientific method that you mentioned.
> 
> This is science driven by hatred towards religious jewish people. The atrocities they did are a prime examplle of atheisms negative aspect of hatred.


where in the scientific method does it say its okay to do that? what people do with science is up to them. like heis said, science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. there is nothing inherit in science that persuades people to commit evil things.
religion on the other hand uses the words of scripture itself to commit the evil acts. people read in their holy book that god says its okay to kill homosexuals, so they go out and do it.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> By your logic, then you should side by believers. Atheists have to dig into the bible which goes back thoudands of years.
> 
> Im not blaming their atheism, just pointing out major atheists in our past history. While these athrists arguing here always turn the other cheek when asked the aforementioned questions


or we can give examples of acts committed by religious people that were evil. citing scriptures isnt the only thing we have against religion.
-9/11
-the attack *yesterday* that injured 77 soldiers and killed a few afghanies, including a 3 year old girl. its not a confirmed religious person, but without a doubt it probably is.
-oslo bombing
-warren jeffs
-jonestown


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> By your logic, then you should side by believers. Atheists have to dig into the bible which goes back thoudands of years.
> 
> Im not blaming their atheism, just pointing out major atheists in our past history. While these athrists arguing here always turn the other cheek when asked the aforementioned questions


my logic and dig back to the bible to find bad examples of religion??

[youtube]zbDu0-K9cPk[/youtube]
cause its the words in what ever age old book scribbled by whatever cave man thats the problem not the modern adherents right?





i guess your right its really hard to find things that are happening now to show "negativity in religion"








olylifter420 said:


> Ok heis, what about the medical reseaech hitler would do on pow's? This *athiesitic* driven scientific research was done in the name of nazi science, yet it still is science and they followed the scientific method that you mentioned.
> 
> This is science driven by hatred towards religious jewish people. The atrocities they did are a prime examplle of *atheisms* negative aspect of hatred.


sure had me fooled


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Ok heis, what about the medical reseaech hitler would do on pow's? This athiesitic driven scientific research was done in the name of nazi science, yet it still is science and they followed the scientific method that you mentioned.
> 
> This is science driven by hatred towards religious jewish people. The atrocities they did are a prime examplle of atheisms negative aspect of hatred.


 Hitler was a christian (raised catholic), which was (in part) the genesis of his antisemitism. You say atheism-driven research, but there is no indication that atheism had anything to do with it. Even if they were atheist, they were not doing these evil deeds IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM (lack of belief), where as religious evil is often done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. Not to mention that the Third Reich was very close to a religion in it's own right, but I won't digress...


----------



## sen.c (Sep 12, 2011)

> -9/11
> -the attack *yesterday* that injured 77 soldiers and killed a few afghanies, including a 3 year old girl. its not a confirmed religious person, but without a doubt it probably is.
> -oslo bombing
> -warren jeffs
> -jonestown


Religion can be anything, what if they did it because Ronald McDonald told them to would that qualify as a religion?



> Hitler was a christian (raised catholic), which was (in part) the genesis of his antisemitism. You say atheism-driven research, but there is no indication that atheism had anything to do with it. Even if they were atheist, they were not doing these evil deeds IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM (lack of belief), where as religious evil is often done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. Not to mention that the Third Reich was very close to a religion in it's own right, but I won't digress...


Sorry but I have to disagree, Everything Hitler did was in the name of Eugenics and Darwinism by trying to forward the evolution of the German race into the perfect specimen. In his efforts to move evolution along he killed all people that were thought to be other than his idea of what the perfect German race should be. This in no way has the slightest thing to do with Christianity. Actualy Nazi soliders were not allowed to believe in God and were told that you were either Christian or German and you could not be both. Also Mein Kamph replaced the Bible by Hitlers demand as the religion of the Nazi war machine.

Being raised as something doesn't mean that you actualy are that, if you look back in history most of your crazed dictators and leaders throughout Europe at this time were raised Roman Catholic. Anyone can break the ties that bind them and this is just the evidence to prove it.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Religion can be anything, what if they did it because Ronald McDonald told them to would that qualify as a religion?


if they believed ronald mcdonald was a prophet of some kind, or god himself, yes. if mcdonalds started making commercials with ronald in it telling people to hurt others, that wouldnt be a religion. it would just be telling people to commit an act


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Religion can be anything, what if they did it because Ronald McDonald told them to would that qualify as a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but I have to disagree, Everything Hitler did was in the name of Eugenics and Darwinism by trying to forward the evolution of the German race into the perfect specimen.


Eugenics is not Darwinism. Darwin proposed a mechanism for how evolution occurred, the combination of variation and natural selection. Evolution has no goal, eugenics does. Evolution is not pretty, is not gentle, is not kind, is not compassionate, is not loving. Evolution is blind, and brutal, and callous. It is not an aspiration or a blueprint to live up to, it is simply what happens, the blind, inexorable forces of nature at work. Attempting to link Darwin and Hitler displays either your ignorance or guile. 


> In his efforts to move evolution along he killed all people that were thought to be other than his idea of what the perfect German race should be. This in no way has the slightest thing to do with Christianity.


 Agreed, but no one claimed it did. Likewise it has nothing to do with Darwin, evolution or atheism. 



> Actualy Nazi soliders were not allowed to believe in God and were told that you were either Christian or German and you could not be both. Also Mein Kamph replaced the Bible by Hitlers demand as the religion of the Nazi war machine.


Sounds like he fostered a type of national religion. No, it wasn't Christianity but being a religion, it certainly wasn't atheistic either.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> where in the scientific method does it say its okay to do that? what people do with science is up to them. like heis said, science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. there is nothing inherit in science that persuades people to commit evil things.
> religion on the other hand uses the words of scripture itself to commit the evil acts. people read in their holy book that god says its okay to kill homosexuals, so they go out and do it.


Science says that it's ok to do fucked up experiments in the name of science. Check out these links 
http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/
http://www.cracked.com/article_18479_5-psych-experiments-that-sounded-fun-until-they-started.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_16583_the-5-scientific-experiments-most-likely-to-end-world.html
These people were just doing experiments to advance in science. There is no wrong in the scientific method, if you discovered something then it's right by science.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> i thought they were a perfect example of the negativity of the human race hardly something you blame on atheism...
> 
> and your having to dig quite far back for any sort of result there 65+ years ago?
> 
> i wonder just how many i could pull up agaisnt religion for last 10 years ..?


Between 1939-1944 hitlers group kill around 5.1-6.0 million people. So yeah in the last 10 years have religious people killed 5.1-6.0 million people?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Science says that it's ok to do fucked up experiments in the name of science. Check out these links
> http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/
> http://www.cracked.com/article_18479_5-psych-experiments-that-sounded-fun-until-they-started.html
> http://www.cracked.com/article_16583_the-5-scientific-experiments-most-likely-to-end-world.html
> These people were just doing experiments to advance in science. There is no wrong in the scientific method, if you discovered something then it's right by science.


There is no wrong in the scientific method. Correct. It is merely tool, a systematic methodology to accomplish a task. Like other tools, say a gun it has no conscience, no morality. Are guns bad? Many people say they are but I have yet to see a gun jump up and shoot someone. Like any tool, it is up to the humans that utilize it to determine what is good and proper. Stop blaming a tool for the misuse by people.

Religion is not a tool, it in stark contrast to the amoral science. Most religions claim to be a guide for life. Religion is supposed to teach, to differentiate between good and bad, instructions for morality. Yet when it fails, you seem to want to give it a pass and compare it to things that don't make the same claims. Sorry Hep, you may be reading what everyone else is saying but you aren't really giving it the contemplation it deserves.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Between 1939-1944 hitlers group kill around 5.1-6.0 million people. So yeah in the last 10 years have religious people killed 5.1-6.0 million people?


So are you sticking with the idea that if someone kills because of non-religious reasons it is a mark against atheism? You have yet to demonstrate how Nazism or Hitler's atrocities had anything to do with not believing in god or gods.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> There is no wrong in the scientific method. Correct. It is merely tool, a systematic methodology to accomplish a task. Like other tools, say a gun it has no conscience, no morality. Are guns bad? Many people say they are but I have yet to see a gun jump up and shoot someone. Like any tool, it is up to the humans that utilize it to determine what is good and proper. Stop blaming a tool for the misuse by people.
> 
> Religion is not a tool, it in stark contrast to the amoral science. Most religions claim to be a guide for life. Religion is supposed to teach, to differentiate between good and bad, instructions for morality. Yet when it fails, you seem to want to give it a pass and compare it to things that don't make the same claims. Sorry Hep, you may be reading what everyone else is saying but you aren't really giving it the contemplation it deserves.


So you don't believe in religion so how do you not think of books like the Quran and the Bible as tools to control a large population of the world? I have never seen the Quran jump up and kill someone, like with any tool it is up to the humans to utilize it to determine what is good and proper.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Hitler was a christian (raised catholic), which was (in part) the genesis of his antisemitism. You say atheism-driven research, but there is no indication that atheism had anything to do with it. Even if they were atheist, they were not doing these evil deeds IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM (lack of belief), where as religious evil is often done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. Not to mention that the Third Reich was very close to a religion in it's own right, but I won't digress...


yep, IOW, the problem was dogmatic adherence to Hitlers ideology, in which case, the Holocaust proves my point.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So you don't believe in religion so how do you not think of books like the Quran and the Bible as tools to control a large population of the world? I have never seen the Quran jump up and kill someone, like with any tool it is up to the humans to utilize it to determine what is good and proper.


 Because now you are misrepresenting what the 'thing' is that we consider dangerous. The books themselves are not religion. The books are tools to convey the ideology of religion, so in that respect you are correct, the bible and the Qur'an are harmless in and of themselves. Religions though are not their holy books, they are ideas, world views and belief systems. Religions transcend the books that describe them. Religions can exist without the books. You are incorrect, it is not up to humans to determine what is good and proper, that's the job of the religion according to its followers.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Because now you are misrepresenting what the 'thing' is that we consider dangerous. The books themselves are not religion. The books are tools to convey the ideology of religion, so in that respect you are correct, the bible and the Qur'an are harmless in and of themselves. Religions though are not their holy books, they are ideas, world views and belief systems. Religions transcend the books that describe them. Religions can exist without the books. You are incorrect, it is not up to humans to determine what is good and proper, that's the job of the religion according to its followers.


Wrong it's up to the follower to choose if he/she wants to follow that religion and it's teachings.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Science says that it's ok to do fucked up experiments in the name of science. Check out these links
> http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/
> http://www.cracked.com/article_18479_5-psych-experiments-that-sounded-fun-until-they-started.html
> http://www.cracked.com/article_16583_the-5-scientific-experiments-most-likely-to-end-world.html
> These people were just doing experiments to advance in science. There is no wrong in the scientific method, if you discovered something then it's right by science.


Hep, I have to agree with you here. Though I am not sure experimentation can be solely blamed on science itself, if this experimentation provides knowledge, if it provides results while observing and testing nature, the process was not misused. Much of amoral experimentation is exempt from this, as MP pointed out, in many cases, such as Nazi experiments, it is a misuse. But daily innocent animals are being experimented on in the name of medical advancement. The researchers do not see this as amoral, but as a necessary part of the process of learning. I have to say it sometimes seems especially cruel and therefore really close to evil.

I have seen cats who had parts of their brains removed so that they are no longer paralyzed during sleep. (your body is semi paralyzed to keep you from acting out your dreams) These cats now and forever will move around during their sleep, making it far less restful and making them likely to injure themselves. Other cats have had thier penis blocked to simulate Feline urinary syndrome. Some of these cats are then given a treatment which cures them, while others are a control group and so they are left untreated until their bladder fills up and bursts, which is a horrible and painful way to die. Because of these cats and this research, we know much more about FUS which helped my cat to survive it, but that does not justify the misery of the innocent cats. An argument could be made that this was the result of greedy pharmaceutical companies, but the scientists performing these acts committed torture and murder in the name of science and didn't feel it was amoral, as it provided valuable knowledge. In this way, science offered justification for evil. 

I may not be thinking this through, I have a nagging feeling that I am missing something and maybe the other science guys can point it out, but it seems you have indeed identified a potential evil that is inherit to science. Again, it seems dogmatic adherence to any ideology leads to cruelty. It should be pointed out though, this has nothing to do with skepticism or atheism.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Wrong it's up to the follower to choose if he/she wants to follow that religion and it's teachings.


That makes no sense. If you are a follower of a particular religion, you do not (should not) get to cherry pick what teachings to follow. If that religion says that god commands you to kill all witches, then that's what you should do. If your god says it's an abomination to eat shellfish, then you don't eat shrimp or lobster. If you decide to not follow that religion because you don't like it's rules, then you really must not have believed those religious teachings came from your creator to begin with. If you don't believe that, than you are essentially an atheist toward that religion (either that or you're okay with eternal damnation)


----------



## sen.c (Sep 12, 2011)

> Eugenics is not Darwinism. Darwin proposed a mechanism for how evolution occurred, the combination of variation and natural selection. Evolution has no goal, eugenics does. Evolution is not pretty, is not gentle, is not kind, is not compassionate, is not loving. Evolution is blind, and brutal, and callous. It is not an aspiration or a blueprint to live up to, it is simply what happens, the blind, inexorable forces of nature at work. Attempting to link Darwin and Hitler displays either your ignorance or guile.


I am very aware of the difference in Darwinism and Eugenics, if you really do some research you will find that Hitler and his plan was based in Darwinism in his thinking and then he started looking into Eugenic experiments and methods after seeing what Our country was doing and studying in the eugenics movement. There are also interviews from prevelent historians of the Reich that say without a doubt his ideas were based in Darwinism.



> Sounds like he fostered a type of national religion. No, it wasn't Christianity but being a religion, it certainly wasn't atheistic either.


Agreed


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

science does not give 'moral rules' to go by. its just a way of discovery. it is up to the culture to determine whether or not the experiments are moral. or sometimes they are done in secret. in heis' case with the feline urinary sydrome, i think its up to the people to decide whether it is moral or not(although i do feel bad for the cats ). if they see a good enough outcome, they may justify doing some evil acts, if the outcome is needed enough. they realized they may discover something new by doing the experiment, and the payoff was (probably) going to be a new treatment that could save the lives of many more cats. maybe they saw it as sacrificing a few to save the many. idk, theres tons of different ways humans can justify things. i guess it is sort of a moral grey area.

but religions claim to have the best morals around while also claiming to be the almighty and wonderful god. it is because of these two things that people are justified in their actions, be they good or bad. a person can commit terribly evil acts while claiming to be doing it for god, and they feel it is totally moral to do so. they think god is with them, and anyone who is against them is a sinner/infidel. this causes conflict among people because they think they are 100% correct and nobody can talk them out of it, because god will be mad.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> That makes no sense. If you are a follower of a particular religion, you do not (should not) get to cherry pick what teachings to follow. If that religion says that god commands you to kill all witches, then that's what you should do. If your god says it's an abomination to eat shellfish, then you don't eat shrimp or lobster. If you decide to not follow that religion because you don't like it's rules, then you really must not have believed those religious teachings came from your creator to begin with. If you don't believe that, than you are essentially an atheist toward that religion (either that or you're okay with eternal damnation)


Yes, I made a mistake. Let me restate that. It is up to a human to choose to pick up a religion and follow it through.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Hep, I have to agree with you here. Though I am not sure experimentation can be solely blamed on science itself, if this experimentation provides knowledge, if it provides results while observing and testing nature, the process was not misused. Much of amoral experimentation is exempt from this, as MP pointed out, in many cases, such as Nazi experiments, it is a misuse. But daily innocent animals are being experimented on in the name of medical advancement. The researchers do not see this as amoral, but as a necessary part of the process of learning. I have to say it sometimes seems especially cruel and therefore really close to evil.
> 
> I have seen cats who had parts of their brains removed so that they are no longer paralyzed during sleep. (your body is semi paralyzed to keep you from acting out your dreams) These cats now and forever will move around during their sleep, making it far less restful and making them likely to injure themselves. Other cats have had thier penis blocked to simulate Feline urinary syndrome. Some of these cats are then given a treatment which cures them, while others are a control group and so they are left untreated until their bladder fills up and bursts, which is a horrible and painful way to die. Because of these cats and this research, we know much more about FUS which helped my cat to survive it, but that does not justify the misery of the innocent cats. An argument could be made that this was the result of greedy pharmaceutical companies, but the scientists performing these acts committed torture and murder in the name of science and didn't feel it was amoral, as it provided valuable knowledge. In this way, science offered justification for evil.
> 
> I may not be thinking this through, I have a nagging feeling that I am missing something and maybe the other science guys can point it out, but it seems you have indeed identified a potential evil that is inherit to science. Again, it seems dogmatic adherence to any ideology leads to cruelty. It should be pointed out though, this has nothing to do with skepticism or atheism.


Agreed, and I must admit I cannot find direct negatives to atheism. Maybe there's some I just can't find any. How about you heis can you think of a problem that directly arises from atheism? (poor cats).


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Agreed, and I must admit I cannot find direct negatives to atheism. Maybe there's some I just can't find any. How about you heis can you think of a problem that directly arises from atheism? (poor cats).


No because atheism is just the position created when someone else believes in god. It's a non-position that doesn't require you to make any assertions. It is not an ideology itself, but it an extension of skepticism. The difference between skepticism and other belief systems is that it begs to be criticized and makes every attempt to self correct. I believe this helps it avoid the pitfalls we have identified here.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> No because atheism is just the position created when someone else believes in god. It's a non-position that doesn't require you to make any assertions. It is not an ideology itself, but it an extension of skepticism. The difference between skepticism and other belief systems is that it begs to be criticized and makes every attempt to self correct. I believe this helps it avoid the pitfalls we have identified here.


Agreed, so there is no problem with atheism. But there are problems in science which what I believed atheists revolved around. So I'm sure you can understand why I made that statement of how there are many problems with atheism. What I really meant to say is there is many problems with science, which many times combats religion.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Hep, I have to agree with you here. Though I am not sure experimentation can be solely blamed on science itself, if this experimentation provides knowledge, if it provides results while observing and testing nature, the process was not misused. Much of amoral experimentation is exempt from this, as MP pointed out, in many cases, such as Nazi experiments, it is a misuse. But daily innocent animals are being experimented on in the name of medical advancement. The researchers do not see this as amoral, but as a necessary part of the process of learning. I have to say it sometimes seems especially cruel and therefore really close to evil.
> 
> I have seen cats who had parts of their brains removed so that they are no longer paralyzed during sleep. (your body is semi paralyzed to keep you from acting out your dreams) These cats now and forever will move around during their sleep, making it far less restful and making them likely to injure themselves. Other cats have had thier penis blocked to simulate Feline urinary syndrome. Some of these cats are then given a treatment which cures them, while others are a control group and so they are left untreated until their bladder fills up and bursts, which is a horrible and painful way to die. Because of these cats and this research, we know much more about FUS which helped my cat to survive it, but that does not justify the misery of the innocent cats. An argument could be made that this was the result of greedy pharmaceutical companies, but the scientists performing these acts committed torture and murder in the name of science and didn't feel it was amoral, as it provided valuable knowledge. In this way, science offered justification for evil.
> 
> I may not be thinking this through, I have a nagging feeling that I am missing something and maybe the other science guys can point it out, but it seems you have indeed identified a potential evil that is inherit to science. Again, it seems dogmatic adherence to any ideology leads to cruelty. It should be pointed out though, this has nothing to do with skepticism or atheism.


Hey, Heis. I am aware that this post will make me seem like a dick, but I am being honest. I know that you empathize with/love animals (esp. cats) and I know others here probably feel the same way. I myself am not an animal lover (except when they are cooked correctly). I know many folks that profess the love of animals, and still eat them every day. I'm not saying that the two things are incompatible, but I'd have a problem with that dilemma. I think that animal research is forgivable: I used to work for a CEAR (center for experimental animal research), and we received regular shipments of monkey, rabbits, pigs, etc.. for research. They were all very cute. We received death threats regularly, and I could never understand why it would be okay to kill us, when no one is down at KFC or slaughter houses threatening their workers. Our researchers did harm these animals with a detached demeanor, but I don't believe any were enjoying it or rubbing their hands together in malevolent glee in anticipation of torturing these animals. They simply hurt theses animals in hopes that their research would make it possible that humans wouldn't be. While most life has value, I feel that human lives are by far the most valuable, for if nothing more than their potential: potentially, any single human could come up with a cure for cancer, come up with an accurate TOE, invent something spectacular that could advance all of humanity. I also think it is natural for each species to have it's own best interest at heart before the welfare of other species, and while animals lives have value, they are not going to advance the quality of our lives (save for the comfort and companionship we get from them) or their own. Evil seems only really apply to humanity, it is strictly a human concept. Nothing in the animal world is good or evil. When people abuse animals (dog fighting, kicking their pet,etc.) I'd call that mean-spirited, demented, perverse. When people abuse other people, I call that evil...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Heis. I am aware that this post will make me seem like a dick, but I am being honest. I know that you empathize with/love animals (esp. cats) and I know others here probably feel the same way. I myself am not an animal lover (except when they are cooked correctly). I know many folks that profess the love of animals, and still eat them every day. I'm not saying that the two things are incompatible, but I'd have a problem with that dilemma. I think that animal research is forgivable: I used to work for a CEAR (center for experimental animal research), and we received regular shipments of monkey, rabbits, pigs, etc.. for research. They were all very cute. We received death threats regularly, and I could never understand why it would be okay to kill us, when no one is down at KFC or slaughter houses threatening their workers. Our researchers did harm these animals with a detached demeanor, but I *don't believe any were enjoying it or rubbing their hands together in malevolent glee in anticipation of torturing these animals*. They simply hurt theses animals in hopes that their research would make it possible that humans wouldn't be. While most life has value, I feel that human lives are by far the most valuable, for if nothing more than their potential: potentially, any single human could come up with a cure for cancer, come up with an accurate TOE, invent something spectacular that could advance all of humanity. I also think it is natural for each species to have it's own best interest at heart before the welfare of other species, and while animals lives have value, they are not going to advance the quality of our lives (save for the comfort and companionship we get from them) or their own. Evil seems only really apply to humanity, it is strictly a human concept. Nothing in the animal world is good or evil. When people abuse animals (dog fighting, kicking their pet,etc.) I'd call that mean-spirited, demented, perverse. When people abuse other people, I call that evil...



The fact that they don't see it as malevolent, but as necessary and justified, is exactly the issue. Religious people who deny their children medical treatments for the sake of prayer also don't feel they are being malevolent. In both cases the ideology offers justification. An animal is given a chance at life just as humans, the only difference being that it isn't as intelligent or capable as humans. For a human to take that life and confine it to nothing but misery and torture, to deprave it of any quality which resembles comfort and well being, and only do so for their own gain, is evil. The only problem I have is, can we blame this evil on the scientific process and say it is an inherit potential evil? (obviously for the sake of this discussion and for simplicity, evil is loosely defined to include cruelty) 

Hunting and killing to sustain life is natures way, and although it often entails pain and misery, it is not prolonged misery, and is not done because of any ideology. (btw I don't include what KFC or industrialized corporate agriculture does as an act of hunting/killing to sustain life, it is to sustain profits)

My own mothers life has been extended as a result of animal research, and for that I am grateful. If you put a cat in front of me and tell me to choose between it and my mother's death, i'll pick the cat (to die). Now if you tell me this cat will not be killed right away, but will be tortured and tormented first, forced to endure incredible pain and indefinite suffering before it's death, I may make a different decision. But that is a moral quandary that serves to distract from the topic.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The fact that they don't see it as malevolent, but as necessary and justified, is exactly the issue. Religious people who deny their children medical treatments for the sake of prayer also don't feel they are being malevolent. In both cases the ideology offers justification. An animal is given a chance at life just as humans, the only difference being that it isn't as intelligent or capable as humans. For a human to take that life and confine it to nothing but misery and torture, to deprave it of any quality which resembles comfort and well being, and only do so for their own gain, is evil. The only problem I have is, can we blame this evil on the scientific process and say it is an inherit potential evil? (obviously for the sake of this discussion and for simplicity, evil is loosely defined to include cruelty)
> 
> Hunting and killing to sustain life is natures way, and although it often entails pain and misery, it is not prolonged misery, and is not done because of any ideology. (btw I don't include what KFC or industrialized corporate agriculture does as an act of hunting/killing to sustain life, it is to sustain profits)
> 
> My own mothers life has been extended as a result of animal research, and for that I am grateful. If you put a cat in front of me and tell me to choose between it and my mother's death, i'll pick the cat (to die). Now if you tell me this cat will not be killed right away, but will be tortured and tormented first, forced to endure incredible pain and indefinite suffering before it's death, I may make a different decision. But that is a moral quandary that serves to distract from the topic.


 *[FONT=&quot]My moral code doesn&#8217;t see all life as equal, and I don&#8217;t know if that is a shortcoming on my part or not. Those religious people you mentioned who deny the best treatment to their children are not being malevolent, but that doesn&#8217;t mean their actions don&#8217;t lead to evil. Malevolence being the intent or wish to do harm. I think one can do evil without being malevolent: if one likes to murder people with their car and kills a family purposefully, he is malevolent. If one is texting and kills said family unintentionally, they are not malevolent. But in both cases their actions led to that family&#8217;s death, which is evil. The law recognizes intent, the only difference between first degree murder and manslaughter (which often carries a lesser sentence) is intent. People hire exterminators to rid animal life from their homes (and not only because that life carries disease, but mainly because no one wants creepy crawlies in their home), some of these treatments prolong suffering in pests. Is this really evil? If all life is of equal value, then you are correct that animal experimentation is evil. I&#8217;m just not convinced that this is the case.[/FONT]*

*[FONT=&quot]Any corporation is in existence for profit, but they need a product or service to offer in order to realize that profit. Supermarkets make great profits in exchange for selling us food, which sustains life. This is also the case for industrialized agriculture and even KFC (to a lesser extent, fast food not being very nutritious), their products sustain life while turning a profit. Medical product suppliers also sustain life, while turning a very tidy profit, etc.. [/FONT]*

*[FONT=&quot]Thank you for sharing the situation with your mom. I&#8217;m surprised at your conviction to your moral code that would make you hesitate to save an animal from torture over your own mother&#8217;s life. I would be fine with the suffering of truck loads of animals to save the life of any of my loved ones. Maybe you are just more evolved than I am, and I mean that sincerely&#8230;[/FONT]*


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Alfred Kinsey


Alfred Kinsey was an infamous American biologist and professor of entomology and zoology, who made groundbreaking research on human sexuality. Undoubtedly, he helped to progress social values &#8211; but, nevertheless, he took sadistic pleasure out of his research, and did some very weird stuff, including exploiting children for sex. Moreover, much of his research was fraud.


9
Napoleon Bonaparte


Many people agree that Napoleon Bonaparte, heavily involved in the anti-clerical French Revolution, was atheist &#8211; he claimed that &#8220;all religions have been made by men&#8221;. He was one of the best ever military commanders, and conquered much of Europe. He staged a coup and declared himself Emperor. While he ended anarchy in post-Revolution France, many considered him a tyrant and usurper. He ignored treaties and conventions, seeking undisputed rule throughout Europe. He plundered conquered territories. His 17 years of rule resulted in the bankruptcy of France, loss of many of her territories, six million dead Europeans and economic setback in just one generation.


8
Than Shwe


Than Shwe is the 77 year old dictator of Myanmar/Burma, the head of the ruling military junta. He has overseen the formation of one of the most closed societies in the world. There is no notion of free press, and journalists who opposed his regime are detained. Aung Suu Kyi, the leader of the main opposition party, is kept in house detention by him. Civil servants are forbidden from resigning. Burma has the highest rate of child soldiers in the world, and uses forced labor on construction projects. As far as dictators go, Than Shwe keeps a relatively low, and even sullen, profile. Nevertheless, he reportedly leads an extravagant lifestyle, while his people continue to suffer a life of extreme poverty and natural disasters. In the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, he refused entry into the country for many foreign aid organizations.


7
Kim Jong Il


Kim Jong-Il is the de facto leader of the Democratic People&#8217;s Republic of Korea, and responsible for the deaths of four million of his fellow Koreans. He is also at the heart of a bizarre personality cult; apocryphal stories such as how &#8220;at the time of his birth there were flashes of lightening and thunder, the iceberg in the pond on Mt. Paektu emitted a mysterious sound as it broke, and bright double rainbows rose up&#8221; are abundant. Those caught stealing food in the famine-struck nation, or attempting to cross the borders, are subject to public execution. Kim is continuing his lavish lifestyle and military obsession in spite of the crumbling economy. In North Korea he and his father are deified, considered saviors of the whole universe. 250,000 dissidents are confined to &#8220;re-education camps&#8221;. He has waged a war on South Korea that involved assassinating South Korean leaders and blowing up South Korean planes. He presents a great threat to the world in terms of nuclear warfare, having persuaded the Soviet Union to award him a nuclear reactor in 1984.


6
Jeffrey Dahmer


Jeffrey Dahmer, an infamous serial killer and atheist sentenced to 900 years in prison, said &#8220;if a person doesn&#8217;t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what&#8217;s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?&#8221;. He brutally killed seventeen men and boys, dismembering them, storing their parts and indulging in cannibalism and necrophilia. In 1991, he was caught by the police after one of his would-be victims escaped. Despite pleading not guilty on the basis on insanity, the court found him sane and fully accountable. He later expressed remorse.







5
Jim Jones


Jim Jones drew people into atheism through the People&#8217;s Temple, largely based in California. He said that he &#8220;took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism&#8221;. In 1978, 909 people at the restricted communist &#8220;sanctuary&#8221; he presided over in Jonestown, Guyana, committed &#8220;revolutionary suicide&#8221; at his command. This occurred after the arrival of an American delegation, which he claimed was conspiring against the People&#8217;s Temple. Men, women and children took a vial of cyanide and died within five minutes. Only a few people escaped. This event was the largest single loss of American civilian life, in a non-natural disaster, up until 9/11. This entry has the unique status of being on both the atheism and Christianity list. The reason is that the majority of people considered Jones to be the leader of a type of Christian cult, but, as the quote above illustrates, it was really a ruse to attract people who would otherwise have steered well clear of him.


4
Benito Mussolini


Mussolini is notorious for his war crimes as a Fascist dictator during World War II. As a young man he openly declared his atheism, and in his early career as a politician was openly anti-clerical. He was the Italian leader of the National Fascist Party, became Prime Minister in 1922 and was eventually a dictator who severely restricted freedom of speech. Mussolini supported Hitler&#8217;s conquest of Austria. In 1935, he invaded Ethiopia, using poison gas, bombing Red Cross hospitals and concentration camps to kill civilians and destroy &#8220;inferior&#8221; cultures. He ordered the execution of prisoners without trial and the shooting of &#8220;witch-doctors&#8221;. Italian troops used public executions, hostage taking and burning of villages to crush the Slavic population of Yugoslavia. These acts are now widely considered an attempt at genocide. However, later he tried to associate Fascism with Catholicism in order to garner dwindling support (however his widow made it clear that he was still staunchly atheist). Mussolini was also deeply anti-Semitic.


3
Mao Zedong


Mao Zedong led the Communist Party of China to victory in the Chinese Civil War, helping to establish the People&#8217;s Republic of China. He had ambitions for a strong China, but his programs largely failed altogether. He has been blamed for the death of between 20 and 67 million of his &#8220;comrades&#8221;. Under his insane rule there was a culture akin to anarchy, that killed the economy and industrial production. His &#8220;Great Leap Forward&#8221; triggered a catastrophic and massive famine. However, he is most notorious for the precepts of the &#8220;Cultural Revolution&#8221;, which led to perhaps the greatest era of cultural vandalism the world has ever known. Antiques, historical sites, artifacts, ancient documents, feng shui traditions, Chinese traditional dresses and monasteries were destroyed for being associated with the &#8220;old ways of thinking&#8221;. Many copies of the Qu&#8217;ran were burnt. Red Guard groups around the country destroyed political and educational stability, criticizing anyone who considered himself superior, destroying reputations and lives. Mao, privately, led a life of great deviancy and excess. He also exacted revenge on all those, mainly intellectuals and professionals, who had disgraced Mao in his earlier career. He also targeted anyone with links to the Chinese Nationalist Party as well as anyone who posed a threat to him. Five million were executed in death camps. 36 million were persecuted and tortured. There were even instances of cannibalism.


2
Pol Pot


Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer Rouge and Prime Minister of Cambodia from 1976 to 1979, having been de facto leader since mid-1975. During his time in power Pol Pot imposed an extreme version of agrarian communism, where all city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions is estimated to have killed around 2 million Cambodians (approximately one third of the population). His regime achieved special notoriety by singling out all intellectuals, and other &#8220;bourgeois enemies&#8221;, for murder. The Khmer Rouge committed mass executions in sites known as the Killing Fields, and the executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, executions were often carried out using hammers, axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks. His attempts to &#8220;cleanse&#8221; the country resulted in the deaths of 1.7 to 2.5 million people. He also had an intense dislike of anyone with the semblance of being intelligent, such as those who wore glasses or who spoke another language.


1
Joseph Stalin


Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union&#8217;s Central Committee, from 1922 until his death in 1953. Under Stalin&#8217;s leadership, the Ukraine suffered a famine (Holodomor) so great it is considered by many to be an act of genocide on the part of Stalin&#8217;s government. Estimates of the number of deaths range from 2.5 million to 10 million. The famine was caused by direct political and administrative decisions. In addition to the famine, Stalin ordered purges within the Soviet Union of any person deemed to be an enemy of the state (i.e. capitalists, theists). In total, estimates of the total number murdered under Stalin&#8217;s reign, range from 10 million to 60 million. His government promoted atheism with mass propaganda in school, and held a terror campaign against the religious. He crushed the Russian Orthodox Church, leveling thousands of churches and shooting more than 100,000 priests, monks and nuns between 1937 and 1938.

N.B. Adolf Hitler is left off this list because it is widely acknowledged that, while he abhorred organized religion, there is much evidence that he engaged in &#8220;nazi mysticism&#8221; or occultism.





Hepheastus420 said:


> Agreed, and I must admit I cannot find direct negatives to atheism. Maybe there's some I just can't find any. How about you heis can you think of a problem that directly arises from atheism? (poor cats).


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> *[FONT=&quot]Any corporation is in existence for profit, but they need a product or service to offer in order to realize that profit. Supermarkets make great profits in exchange for selling us food, which sustains life. This is also the case for industrialized agriculture and even KFC (to a lesser extent, fast food not being very nutritious), their products sustain life while turning a profit. Medical product suppliers also sustain life, while turning a very tidy profit, etc.. [/FONT]*


I agree with you, but just to clarify. I was speaking of something like CAFO's as opposed to individual localized farming. I am not one of those people who are against eating animals, or genetically modifying crops, because I understand the world has to eat, and beef tastes good. I actually eat relatively little beef or pork, but not because of any morality or health issues. I just don't care much for it.

Check out this video for what I am talking about, try to ignore that it's on a conspiracy website ;P


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I agree with you, but just to clarify. I was speaking of something like CAFO's as opposed to individual localized farming. I am not one of those people who are against eating animals, or genetically modifying crops, because I understand the world has to eat, and beef tastes good. I actually eat relatively little beef or pork, but not because of any morality or health issues. I just don't care much for it.
> 
> Check out this video for what I am talking about, try to ignore that it's on a conspiracy website ;P


 Oh man you don't want to get me started on conspiracies. I'm like the most paranoid guy I know, ha.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Oh man you don't want to get me started on conspiracies. I'm like the most paranoid guy I know, ha.


Well the video serves to fuel conspiracy thinkers, but the video itself contains valid information, and the BBC has a good track record with fairness and fact checking.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I agree with you, but just to clarify. I was speaking of something like CAFO's as opposed to individual localized farming. I am not one of those people who are against eating animals, or genetically modifying crops, because I understand the world has to eat, and beef tastes good. I actually eat relatively little beef or pork, but not because of any morality or health issues. I just don't care much for it.
> 
> Check out this video for what I am talking about, try to ignore that it's on a conspiracy website ;P


Yes, I'm familiar with these. My first exposure to them were from the movie Food, Inc.. These are horrid conditions for animals, and apparently for the environment, with all the methane released, the polluting of water ways, etc.. These animals from birth are packed shoulder to shoulder in their own filth, and have to be given mega doses of antibiotics to stave off infection from sores that their living conditions bring about. I buy mostly free range beef, chicken and eggs because it discourages these CAFOs, it's sustainable and the food taste MUCH better  Also, I am still in shock over the manipulative ways of Monsanto, seems so Machiavellian and the gov't seems to back their practices. Sickening...


----------



## apollo4 (Sep 12, 2011)

to each is own my bros


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Alfred Kinsey
> 
> 
> Alfred Kinsey was an infamous American biologist and professor of entomology and zoology, who made groundbreaking research on human sexuality. Undoubtedly, he helped to progress social values &#8211; but, nevertheless, he took sadistic pleasure out of his research, and did some very weird stuff, including exploiting children for sex. Moreover, much of his research was fraud.
> ...


The point I'll make again (and again, and again, and again), that I'm sure you won't get, is while some of these people were atheists, none of these awful things were done IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM. Conversely, much religious evil is done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. Am I not writing this as clearly as I think I am? I'm trying to figure out a way to say it in a simpler way, but I'm drawing a blank...


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> The point I'll make again (and again, and again, and again), that I'm sure you won't get, it while some of these people were atheists, none of these awful things were done IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM. Conversely, much religious evil is done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. Am I not writing this as clearly as I think I am? I'm trying to figure out a way to say it in a simpler way, but I'm drawing a blank...


 There's a good chance that none of these people on his list were stamp collectors either. This must mean that non-stamp collectors are a threat to society.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> There's a good chance that none of these people on his list were stamp collectors either. This must mean that non-stamp collectors are a threat to society.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector


nice. hes got some good vids. i thought this one was good for this thread
[video=youtube;bSLkQnCurgs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSLkQnCurgs[/video]


----------



## Morgan Lynn (Sep 13, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i saw someone mention this in a thread. id like to hear why you may think atheism is bad


I'm an atheist and I find nothing bad about atheism.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 13, 2011)

Funnuy cause.monsanto is atheist 





tyler.durden said:


> Yes, I'm familiar with these. My first exposure to them were from the movie Food, Inc.. These are horrid conditions for animals, and apparently for the environment, with all the methane released, the polluting of water ways, etc.. These animals from birth are packed shoulder to shoulder in their own filth, and have to be given mega doses of antibiotics to stave off infection from sores that their living conditions bring about. I buy mostly free range beef, chicken and eggs because it discourages these CAFOs, it's sustainable and the food taste MUCH better  Also, I am still in shock over the manipulative ways of Monsanto, seems so Machiavellian and the gov't seems to back their practices. Sickening...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 13, 2011)

Do you think atheism was to blame for the problems you mentioned in another thread?






Morgan Lynn said:


> I'm an atheist and I find nothing bad about atheism.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 13, 2011)

Gays are not welcomed by God, so therefore all atheists are gay right? Same logic






mindphuk said:


> There's a good chance that none of these people on his list were stamp collectors either. This must mean that non-stamp collectors are a threat to society.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 13, 2011)

Just check out the amazing chemist of ww2, hobler or something like who was just using his science background(chemistry) to create weapons of war, mainly the chlorine gas bomb.


----------



## cannabisguru (Sep 13, 2011)

really? lol, you really have to even ask this question?

IMO, Atheist.. all of them, will take a quick ride into hell for eternity. 

just my opinion though. 

I really hate these religion threads though.. the subject is so controversial to begin with, so when you start a 'debate' of this particular subject, your going to get all kinds of different replies.. because everyone's religion isn't the same. 

so, I'll end it with that.

peace.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 13, 2011)

cannabisguru said:


> IMO, Atheist.. all of them, will take a quick ride into hell for eternity.


Just like that? So for not believing in something that was designed to be untestable in any way, we deserve to be tortured and tormented for ETERNITY? 

Do you honestly think that a being that you guys claim to be benevolent, a being that's all good in every conceivable way would be the mind behind such a system?


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 13, 2011)

Negatives of atheism huh?How do you point out the bad things about not believing in God,..,,..,,..,,..O thats right u cant,that is if your an atheist to begin with.Im sure there can be many negatives pointed out about the absence of belief, that being you believe in God.I wont state an opinion that will lead to more of the endless squabble, no offense to the good arguements made in this thread,it is mentaly taxing to read it all then attempt to share a viewpoint in which you know it will be shot to hell so to speak.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 13, 2011)

cannabisguru said:


> IMO, Atheist.. all of them, will take a quick ride into hell for eternity.


thanks you! you christians are so nice


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 13, 2011)

You have been tortured by believers?


The mind behind the system are individuals who use them for mallice. 


Tell, what was the mind behind the system of stalin? Dont go saying if there wasnt religion he would not have killed, its called communism just in case you forgot what his regime as all about.






Padawanbater2 said:


> Just like that? So for not believing in something that was designed to be untestable in any way, we deserve to be tortured and tormented for ETERNITY?
> 
> Do you honestly think that a being that you guys claim to be benevolent, a being that's all good in every conceivable way would be the mind behind such a system?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 13, 2011)

Stalin wanted to discourage competition. Again, you can't link anything Stalin did directly with atheism. Why even bring it up if we're just going to get back to that same old argument? You can't counter it with anything. At this point it's a lost cause, I don't think you'll understand it no matter how many times any of us try to explain it.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> Negatives of atheism huh?How do you point out the bad things about not believing in God,..,,..,,..,,..O thats right u cant,that is if your an atheist to begin with.Im sure there can be many negatives pointed out about the absence of belief, that being you believe in God.I wont state an opinion that will lead to more of the endless squabble, no offense to the good arguements made in this thread,*it is mentaly taxing to read it all then attempt to share a viewpoint in which you know it will be shot to hell* so to speak.


When reason and rationality fail, when evidence is stacked against you, when you have no defense left in your arsenal, the only thing left to do is grief and troll and cause so much bother that the other side just quits. It is the refuge of a desperately ignorant mind, and the tactic currently being employed by oly. This is what we see from someone who is more interested in what they believe than they are the truth,( i.e they can't handle the truth) The truth becomes contemptible, the belief becomes authoritative, and they then feel justified in using whatever tactics and tricks necessary to give them the appearance of validity, which often amounts to simply exasperating the opposition into silence. This is the very demonstration of Dogma, and I think nothing better proves our point about the dangers of religion destroying the rational mind than oly's posts.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 13, 2011)

> Stalin wanted to discourage competition. Again, you can't link anything Stalin did directly with atheism.


Well by deffinition Atheism is defined as believeing there is no God, or there is no diety. I am sure that if Stalin were in fact a true believer in God he would not have committed the atrocities
against his people that he did.

Now as far as the deffinition goes I am using Merriam Webster as reference, the problem is most atheists now like to say atheism is just the lack of belief in whatever they feel it may apply to at the time. I am not saying that as trying to speak for everyone but many I have had the pleasure of dialogue with that is how they use it. True atheists believe there is no God or deity and that is it, but there are other "neuvo" atheists that spin it to mean whatever they want as a cop out so they don't have to feel that they may be held accountable for whatever suits their needs at the time.

IMHO



> When reason and rationality fail, when evidence is stacked against you, when you have no defense left in your arsenal, the only thing left to do is grief and troll and cause so much bother that the other side just quits. It is the refuge of a desperately ignorant mind, and the tactic currently being employed by oly. This is what we see from someone who is more interested in what they believe than they are the truth,( i.e they can't handle the truth) The truth becomes contemptible, the belief becomes authoritative, and they then feel justified in using whatever tactics and tricks necessary to give them the appearance of validity, which often amounts to simply exasperating the opposition into silence. This is the very demonstration of Dogma, and I think nothing better proves our point about the dangers of religion destroying the rational mind than oly's posts.


No argument here, just a friendly reminder that maybe the other side of the fence feels the same way about the atheist view. 

This thread was loaded from the begining, it will always be a great divide and nothing will come of all this back and forth. We won't change our belief system just as you won't change yours. Are any of us wrong for that, no.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Well by deffinition Atheism is defined as believeing there is no God, or there is no diety. I am sure that if Stalin were in fact a true believer in God he would not have committed the atrocities
> against his people that he did.
> 
> Now as far as the deffinition goes I am using Merriam Webster as reference, the problem is most atheists now like to say atheism is just the lack of belief in whatever they feel it may apply to at the time. I am not saying that as trying to speak for everyone but many I have had the pleasure of dialogue with that is how they use it. True atheists believe there is no God or deity and that is it, but there are other "neuvo" atheists that spin it to mean whatever they want as a cop out so they don't have to feel that they may be held accountable for whatever suits their needs at the time.
> ...





> Definition of ATHEISM
> 
> 1
> archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
> ...


Why do you suppose Webster's allows for two entries here? Is it because there is a distinction between disbelief (not being convinced) and and asserting there is no deity? As I have explained in this thread and in other directly to you, when someone says there is no god they do so outside of and in addition to atheism. 

What you seem to be doing is saying "I have a problem with position B", listening to people explain that they take position A, and then saying "position A doesn't really exist therefore I can continue to attack you as if you take position B". The only way your post makes sense is if you ignore the 'no true Scotsman' and strawman fallacies, which has been pointed out to you many times. Either you don't understand, and considering that you often speak with wit and sophistication I doubt this is the case, or you are purposely using invalid debate tactics to lend justification to a baseless assertion.

Atheists simply observe that the Abrahamic God has as much empirical validity as Santa Clause. We observe that the holy books attesting to his existence bear every indication of being fabricated by ignorant mortals. We observe that belief in God seems to be predicated more so on where you live and what time period you were born than on the belief showing merit. This is all that is needed to judge that Christianity and the like is a cult peddling mythical history.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 13, 2011)

> Why do you suppose Webster's allows for two entries here? Is it because there is a distinction between disbelief (not being convinced) and and asserting there is no deity? As I have explained in this thread and in other directly to you, when someone says there is no god they do so outside of and in addition to atheism.
> 
> What you seem to be doing is saying "I have a problem with position B", listening to people explain that they take position A, and then saying "position B doesn't really exist therefore I can continue to attack you as if you take position B". The only way your post makes sense is if you ignore the 'no true Scotsman' and strawman fallacies, which has been pointed out to you many times. Either you don't understand, and considering that you often speak with wit and sophistication I doubt this is the case, or you are purposely using invalid debate tactics to lend justification to a baseless assertion.


Not here to fight just pointing out a few things. Atheism in it truest form is in fact the disbelief of God. Penn Jillett is one of the most outspoken Atheists out there and what will he say there is no God. As far as the "No True Scotsman" and "Strawman Fallacies" go you are exactly right I ignore them only after listening to them so let's make that clear.

Also at no time in my statement above did I refer directly to you or anyone else in this thread directly by name and I made it a point not to just to see who came back at me as if I did. I do not have a problem if you subscribe to "A" or "B" that is your right, I am just speaking in generalities and from personal experience outside of this forum. 

In closing I am not using invalid debate tactics to lend justification to a baseless assertion as you stated but rather just putting the info out there for review. No need to take offense, you have the right to remain a sceptic until the burden of proof meets your requirements just as I do on issues.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Not here to fight just pointing out a few things. Atheism in it truest form is in fact the disbelief of God. Penn Jillett is one of the most outspoken Atheists out there and what will he say there is no God. As far as the "No True Scotsman" and "Strawman Fallacies" go you are exactly right I ignore them only after listening to them so let's make that clear.


So remaining unconvinced of Bigfoot, in it's truest form, is asserting that Bigfoot does not exist? If I speak the loudest about Bigfoot's non-existence, I change the very meaning of the word 'unconvinced'? How convenient for you to be able to ignore fallacies, it complements your logic well.

If your remarks are aimed at those claiming no god, then fine. I have problems with those people's logic as well. Just as long as you are not trying to contrive that every atheistic stance boils down to claiming there is no god, which you are.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 13, 2011)

> So remaining unconvinced of Bigfoot, in it's truest form, is asserting that Bigfoot does not exist?


Nope, he very well could exsist. The question is as I stated above does the burden of proof required for you to acknowledge that he indeed does exsist meet your requirements? The answer is really simple, your burden of proof is met or it isn't very black and white. 



> If I speak the loudest about Bigfoot's non-existence, I change the very meaning of the word 'unconvinced'?


No, maybe in your own mind but that doesn't matter to the real world because the deffinition of "unconvinced" remains the same whether you see it that way or not.



> How convenient for you to be able to ignore fallacies, it complements your logic well.


Not really that I ignore them they got equal play time I just choose not to prescribe to them after watching them and making my own decision based on my required burden of proof.



> If your remarks are aimed at those claiming no god, then fine. I have problems with those people's logic as well. Just as long as you are not trying to contrive that every atheistic stance boils down to claiming there is no god, which you are.


Like I said in my first post on this I spoke directly to no one particular person in this thread, if you feel singled out I am sorry but that wasn't the intention and that also was stated before yet you still come back at me as if I am speaking directly to you.

So that there is no misunderstanding at the core Atheism is the act of believing in NO Diety which God is considered a diety. I can't stand Wikipedia but alot of people on here use it as if were law so here we go.
*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]


The term _atheism_ originated from the Greek &#7940;&#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; (_atheos_), meaning "without god", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.[7]
Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered various rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[8][9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[10]

Makes no sense to me that one can be Atheist but be spiritual, seems to me the Atheists can't even agree on what is acceptable as Atheism


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Not here to fight just pointing out a few things.


Yet you point out things you know are going to be controversial...


> Atheism in it truest form is in fact the disbelief of God.


No, the truest form is the rejection of theistic claims. This is obvious by just breaking down the word. 


> Penn Jillett is one of the most outspoken Atheists out there and what will he say there is no God.


No he doesn't. He ALWAYS says he doesn't know. Show me ONE link to Penn saying that he knows there is no god. 

[video=youtube;swkAGExZCII]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkAGExZCII[/video]

[video=youtube;JNop4Cw8hQk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNop4Cw8hQk[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Like I said in my first post on this I spoke directly to no one particular person in this thread, if you feel singled out I am sorry but that wasn't the intention and that also was stated before yet you still come back at me as if I am speaking directly to you.


This is a tactic I've seen you use several times before. Suggesting that opposition just stay quiet or give up, in this case suggesting my response is somehow unjust or an attack simply because you weren't speaking directly to me. No matter who you were speaking to, the lack of intellectual merit can still be pointed out.



> Makes no sense to me that one can be Atheist but be spiritual, seems to me the Atheists can't even agree on what is acceptable as Atheism


I don't see any atheist here squabbling about what atheism means. Your own examples of definitions make it pretty clear. Since atheism is simply the lack of a belief, and indicates nothing about what a person might believe, requires a person to make no assertions, there can be no set ideology or behaviors unique to atheism. Atheism is a single attribute that neither indicates nor implies any others.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 13, 2011)

So atheism is a lack of belief in a god or diety. Religious people claim there is a god, therefore atheists believe we have to prove it to them. Atheists do a good on not stating what they do follow to control their morals. If we found that out then we would be able to point out everyone's flaws. But they did not state their beliefs so we can't point out any if their flaws. Just to clarify us religious people can point out the flaws of science or society. Which is what I assume you atheists believe and follow.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.



Don't respond to this, I'm gonna post it on my thread so I don't ruin this thread with my statement. Then over on my thread you can respond to it.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 13, 2011)

> I don't see any atheist here squabbling about what atheism means. Your own examples of definitions make it pretty clear. Since atheism is simply the lack of a belief, and indicates nothing about what a person might believe, requires a person to make no assertions,


That is because it means something different to every Atheist. The definition clearly states that Atheism is the belief in no deity, again no deity. It also says later that the meaning was narrowed, I wonder why?



> No, the truest form is the rejection of theistic claims. This is obvious by just breaking down the word.


Sorry, Fail......
Theism is the belief in a deity and Athesim is the belief in NO DEITY, you can mix words and spin stuff all you want but the fact remains that true atheists of the 18 century would consider you something other than an Atheist.



> No he doesn't. He ALWAYS says he doesn't know. Show me ONE link to Penn saying that he knows there is no god.


Sorry again, Fail..............
He says it all the time, He wrote a Book titled "GOD, NO" how else do you plan to spin this?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> That is because it means something different to every Atheist. The definition clearly states that Atheism is the belief in no deity, again no deity. It also says later that the meaning was narrowed, I wonder why?


It seems to be referring to a narrow minded way to view atheism, not that the definition was narrowed. But this is semantics. I do not claim the non existence of a deity. I will take the common ground offered and accept that you are not speaking about my position. So long as you don't then erode my position to be different than what it is, however indirectly.




> Sorry again, Fail..............
> He says it all the time, He wrote a Book titled "GOD, NO" how else do you plan to spin this?


Sen is right here about Penns opinion. What he is not right about is that Penn represents atheism when he says this. Am I committing the 'no true atheist' fallacy? Not in this case, because this is what Penn actually says.



> I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy


He makes many good points in that article, including that his belief in no god is outside of atheism, and amounts to faith. 



> But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some *leap of faith* that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Sorry, Fail......
> Theism is the belief in a deity and Athesim is the belief in NO DEITY, you can mix words and spin stuff all you want but the fact remains that true atheists of the 18 century would consider you something other than an Atheist.


the prefix 'a' means 'not' or 'without'. so atheist means not or without a belief in a deity.

edit: oops forgot to put this http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 13, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Just like that? So for not believing in something that was designed to be untestable in any way, we deserve to be tortured and tormented for ETERNITY?
> 
> Do you honestly think that a being that you guys claim to be benevolent, a being that's all good in every conceivable way would be the mind behind such a system?


[video=youtube;6gnQz32c5EA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gnQz32c5EA[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 13, 2011)

> n. What he is not right about is that Penn represents atheism when he says this



Funny, because the inquistioners and retarded "religious nut jobs" do not represent believers either, yet you all always use that connection. Only you atheists can use that tactic, how nice of you all


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 13, 2011)

tHanks for the sig!





Luger187 said:


> the prefix 'a' means 'not' or 'without'. so atheist means not or without a belief in a deity.
> 
> edit: oops forgot to put this http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 13, 2011)

actually i would love if you put that in your sig. maybe it would remind you of the real definition


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 13, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> [video=youtube;6gnQz32c5EA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gnQz32c5EA[/video]


 Exactly dude.. exactly.


----------



## Morgan Lynn (Sep 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Do you think atheism was to blame for the problems you mentioned in another thread?


No? How could that be possible?

Religion talk burns me out. I really can't stand it.

I am what I am. You are what you are. Don't infringe on my rights and I wont infringe on yours. The end.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 14, 2011)

> actually i would love if you put that in your sig. maybe it would remind you of the real definition


Nope, the deffinition in it's entirety was posted but that's not good enough for you. Are you a DJ on the side because you have a heck of a spin game?

Theism and Atheism are exact opposites of each other and if you look into the history of the begining of the Athiest emergence it was simply the fact that did not believe in God or a Deity plain and simple. 




> No? How could that be possible?
> 
> Religion talk burns me out. I really can't stand it.
> 
> I am what I am. You are what you are. Don't infringe on my rights and I wont infringe on yours. The end.


There you go again, if your statement is true then why even bother to post and participate in this thread? You had the right not to get involved in this thread but you did and now you want 
to tell people not to infringe on your rights. You made the decision to enter into dialogue about something you say burns you out and you had the right to but others in the thread have the right 
to rebuttal and you don't like it. Maybe you should do a better job of picking threads to get involved in if you really can't stand them, THE END.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

Another great thread gone to be forgotten.

Luger, you still havnt answered my question.

Why do you want to get rid of believers and have so muvh hate towards us, when a few months ago, you were defending muslims in new york and around the US?

I Think you are a muslim who is really confused and dont know what you want.

Its alright man,God loves us all.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Nope, the deffinition in it's entirety was posted but that's not good enough for you. Are you a DJ on the side because you have a heck of a spin game?
> 
> Theism and Atheism are exact opposites of each other and if you look into the history of the begining of the Athiest emergence it was simply the fact that *did not believe in God or a Deity plain and simple.*


right.... so why are you arguing that we believe there is no god?
im actually not sure what someone who believes there is no god is called. im thinkin either nontheist, untheist, contratheist or ditheist
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Sep 14, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i saw someone mention this in a thread. id like to hear why you may think atheism is bad


I don't think Atheism is bad, (nice bait and switch BTW)

But if you are wrong you're fucked.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Another great thread gone to be forgotten.
> 
> Luger, you still havnt answered my question.
> 
> ...


because the reason people want to kick them out is because of their religion. i thought that was stupid because most of the people hating the muslims were christians. so i was saying if the christians are allowed, so should the muslims.
personally, i dont want to kick religious people out. i want to educate people so they dont want religion in their lives. there is a difference. but in the meantime, if one religion is allowed, i dont think its fair for that religion to shun others into staying away.

yes oly, i am a muslim


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

Bonzi Lighthouse said:


> I don't think Atheism is bad, (nice bait and switch BTW)
> 
> But if you are wrong you're fucked.


bait and switch?

what if we are both wrong?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 14, 2011)

Bonzi Lighthouse said:


> But if you are wrong you're fucked.


Do you know how old that argument is? 

You use special reasoning for your religion. 

Why don't other gods or religions get the same consideration? Each of them have the same stipulation "believe in me and no other gods or "you're fucked"", so what makes you think your faith is correct?


----------



## Morgan Lynn (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Nope, the deffinition in it's entirety was posted but that's not good enough for you. Are you a DJ on the side because you have a heck of a spin game?
> 
> Theism and Atheism are exact opposites of each other and if you look into the history of the begining of the Athiest emergence it was simply the fact that did not believe in God or a Deity plain and simple.
> 
> ...


I'm yawning over here. Try harder.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 14, 2011)

> im actually not sure what someone who believes there is no god is called.


Really



> I'm yawning over here. Try harder


I would yawning too if I jumped into every thread I didn't "Care" about to voice my opinion. Just seems to me like you are a follower and every post you have jumped in that I have been a part of is about what you say you can't stand so what gives? Do you feel the need to just jump in to feel like you have something in common with someone? No need to try just go aaway if in fact this thread is something you can't stand as stated by you, no one will miss you.



> so what makes you think your faith is correct?


Probably the same thing that makes you think yours is, he has his right to his own opinion. The only problem is that any time someone of faith says something it is this big travisty of knowledge. The deffinition of knowledge is different to everyone. That would be like me saying that some guy I don't know is wrong or dumb because he doesn't know how to do something that I may know how to do. That is not the case, he probably knows alot of things that I don't know as well and that is called life experience. What is so funny to me is someone can be as book smart as they want but not know how to apply it to the real world situation but then often have the nerve to call some stupid or foolish that doesn't know what the book may say but rather figured out how to apply it on their own without someone giving them the info and that to me is intelligence.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Really


yes, really...


----------



## sen.c (Sep 14, 2011)

> yes, really...


Need hooked on phonics, I can supply you with more than enough deffinitions from various sources that say prety much the same thing as the prior deffinition.

So, do you carry money with you?



> yes oly, i am a muslim


So which is it your Muslim, Atheist or are you something new like maybe a Muslim Atheist? You need to choose a side riding the fence isn't going to get you anywhere.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Probably the same thing that makes you think yours is, he has his right to his own opinion.


Subjective opinions don't equal objective facts.



sen.c said:


> The only problem is that any time someone of faith says something it is this big travisty of knowledge.


When you say something scientifically inaccurate on an open public forum, you should expect to be corrected, and you shouldn't feel like being corrected makes the other guy arrogant or superior. Accepting you made a mistake will gain you respect and credibility. 



sen.c said:


> The deffinition of knowledge is different to everyone.


I'm afraid you're simply wrong. 



sen.c said:


> That would be like me saying that some guy I don't know is wrong or dumb because he doesn't know how to do something that I may know how to do. That is not the case, he probably knows alot of things that I don't know as well and that is called life experience. What is so funny to me is someone can be as book smart as they want but not know how to apply it to the real world situation but then often have the nerve to call some stupid or foolish that doesn't know what the book may say but rather figured out how to apply it on their own without someone giving them the info and that to me is intelligence.


People who don't study scientific theories or understand basic scientific concepts won't have the resoures to talk about them, exactly the same as if I didn't study car engines or motors, I wouldn't really know what I'm talking about if someone asked me. 

Have you ever studied the theory of evolution? Do you know what natural selection is? Do you know what DNA is? This stuff proves without a shadow of a doubt that the theory of evolution is the explanation for what is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Need hooked on phonics, I can supply you with more than enough deffinitions from various sources that say prety much the same thing as the prior deffinition.
> 
> So, do you carry money with you?


all you have to do is look at the word. without a belief in god DOES NOT mean the same thing as belief that there is no god. belief in no god infers that there is a belief system there with reasoning for why there is no god. an atheist does not see evidence that convinces them there is no god or that there is a god. they simply have not been convinced that there is one. that is it. however, some atheists do believe there is no god, but that is separate from atheism itself.



> So which is it your Muslim, Atheist or are you something new like maybe a Muslim Atheist? You need to choose a side riding the fence isn't going to get you anywhere.


i was being sarcastic


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Sep 14, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> bait and switch?
> 
> what if we are both wrong?


Theres a god but it's ET?

Were are a science experiment gone horribly wrong by adolescent Aliens?


----------



## undertheice (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> The definition of knowledge is different to everyone.





Padawanbater2 said:


> I'm afraid you're simply wrong.


it must be nice to be so sure of yourself, even if it is a false confidence. the state of _knowing_ something is not the black and white matter you seem to think it is. to know something is merely to _perceive_ or _understand_ it as true and this relies on a series of assumptions. our first and most dangerous assumption is that we can trust our perceptions. when those laws of the universe we so carefully describe are discovered, it is through the perception of our surroundings that they are proven. even the relatively simple laws ascribed to gravity or light are only as true as our perceptions allow us to document. trapped in a tiny segment of time and space, that other laws may elsewhere override our own puny understandings is a possibility that must be taken into account. considering this, our origins and any possible meaning to our existence become a giant question mark and our musings merely assumptions. it is hubris to assume that there is some constancy to the universe, the same sort of hubris that once led _scientific minds_ to believe our world to be the center of the universe.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

Bonzi Lighthouse said:


> Theres a god but it's ET?
> 
> Were are a science experiment gone horribly wrong by adolescent Aliens?


what if its Atman?
idk of any science experiments gone wrong by aliens lol


----------



## sen.c (Sep 14, 2011)

> some atheists do believe there is no god, but that is separate from atheism itself.


No sir, you are taking the new liberal translation of the deffinition which doesn't suprise me. The deffinition says both but if you research true atheist text it states that there is no God. Now you may want to prescribe to the "New Atheist" deffinition but the true atheist like I said before would call you a false atheist. Why all the change, what was wrong with atheism as it was started in the 18th century? I will tell you what is wrong, it asked to much so they figured they would change it as they went to better suit them much the same as how so many churches distort the Bible and it's teachings today as well.

American currency states "IN GOD WE TRUST" which is clearly stating that there is a GOD or as you would put it a Deity. So I would think that by the true deffinition of Atheism you wouldn't be able to carry American currency in your 
pocket but rather check card, credit card, or checks because they do not have anything on them that represent a god or deity. Kind of a double standard if you ask me.



> I'm afraid you're simply wrong.


I am sorry that I don't fit into your little box but my statement was very accurate. Who are you to tell anyone what is acceptable as knowledge and what is not?



> People who don't study scientific theories or understand basic scientific concepts won't have the resoures to talk about them, exactly the same as if I didn't study car engines or motors, I wouldn't really know what I'm talking about if someone asked me.
> 
> Have you ever studied the theory of evolution? Do you know what natural selection is? Do you know what DNA is? This stuff proves without a shadow of a doubt that the theory of evolution is the explanation for what is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.


You are absolutely correct but does that make one more intelligent than the other? No, and believe it or not some people can actualy be so smart that they are litterally dumb.

You know the answer to those questions are so let's don't go there. Nice try on redirecting the debate but not gonna happen the subject is Atheism.



> Subjective opinions don't equal objective facts.


Look you can try and spin this all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you know what this is all about and so do others let's quit dancing around the subject shall we.
Atheism as it was founded was in it's simplest formwas the belief in no Deity or God.



> it must be nice to be so sure of yourself, even if it is a false confidence. the state of _knowing_ something is not the black and white matter you seem to think it is. to know something is merely to _perceive_ or _understand_ it as true and this relies on a series of assumptions. our first and most dangerous assumption is that we can trust our perceptions. when those laws of the universe we so carefully describe are discovered, it is through the perception of our surroundings that they are proven. even the relatively simple laws ascribed to gravity or light are only as true as our perceptions allow us to document. trapped in a tiny segment of time and space, that other laws may elsewhere override our own puny understandings is a possibility that must be taken into account. considering this, our origins and any possible meaning to our existence become a giant question mark and our musings merely assumptions. it is hubris to assume that there is some constancy to the universe, the same sort of hubris that once led _scientific minds_ to believe our world to be the center of the universe.


Sometimes you can overthink things. The fact is that knowledge is exactly that knowledge, without knowledge of things we would still be running around in loin cloths and living in grass huts. Knowledge is measureable to to say anything other would be silly. Last time I checked the planets are still in the same order, the sun still rises and sets I mean really do you have to think about things so deeply sometimes that you talk yourself out of anything you ever learned.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 14, 2011)

undertheice said:


> it must be nice to be so sure of yourself, even if it is a false confidence. the state of _knowing_ something is not the black and white matter you seem to think it is. to know something is merely to _perceive_ or _understand_ it as true and this relies on a series of assumptions. our first and most dangerous assumption is that we can trust our perceptions. when those laws of the universe we so carefully describe are discovered, it is through the perception of our surroundings that they are proven. even the relatively simple laws ascribed to gravity or light are only as true as our perceptions allow us to document. trapped in a tiny segment of time and space, that other laws may elsewhere override our own puny understandings is a possibility that must be taken into account. considering this, our origins and any possible meaning to our existence become a giant question mark and our musings merely assumptions. it is hubris to assume that there is some constancy to the universe, the same sort of hubris that once led _scientific minds_ to believe our world to be the center of the universe.


The possibility is always taken into account. Its been pointed out before, science doesn't claim absolute certainty, so this is always automatically assumed when people talk about it. I know I don't have to explain that to you and it seems like you're splitting hairs when you bring up things like that. 

I know nothing is certain, what I'm saying is that the way we measure reality is dependent upon our perceptions, so we are forced to make the assumptions because there is no other way to go about it. The method we've created enables us to weed out the false assumptions by experimenting. It's the best method we have. It's reliable and predictable. 

Knowledge is the facts as established, the results of which can be confirmed by prediction and replicated in any lab using this method. 

Knowledge is humanities collective perception based on replicable results.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> No sir, you are taking the new liberal translation of the deffinition which doesn't suprise me. The deffinition says both but if you research true atheist text it states that there is no God. Now you may want to prescribe to the "New Atheist" deffinition but the true atheist like I said before would call you a false atheist.


then what is someone with a lack of belief called? what true atheist texts are you referring to?
they used to see atheists as antitheists because people didnt realize that you can have a lack of belief in god, without believing that there is no god. they saw it as anti-religious, which still happens today(just read this thread). also words do change over time so its perfectly reasonable for it to have a different definition now than it used to, right?



> Why all the change, what was wrong with atheism as it was started in the 18th century?


i dont know enough about 18th century atheism to comment.



> I will tell you what is wrong, it asked to much so they figured they would change it as they went to better suit them much the same as how so many churches distort the Bible and it's teachings today as well.


oh i see. so it was to protect themselves from the logical reasoning of religious folks?
couldnt the religious just ask if they believe there is no god? then if the person responds yes, give the person their religious argument for why god does?
why does the term atheism even matter? 



> American currency states "IN GOD WE TRUST" which is clearly stating that there is a GOD or as you would put it a Deity. So I would think that by the true deffinition of Atheism you wouldn't be able to carry American currency in your
> pocket but rather check card, credit card, or checks because they do not have anything on them that represent a god or deity. Kind of a double standard if you ask me.


i carry a piece of paper around that says 'in god we trust' because thats what this country uses for money. because it says we trust in god does not make it true for me. its just a nice saying they put on there to shut the christians up. obviously i think it should be taken off the dollar because it is a blanket statement which is simply not true at all.



> Atheism as it was founded was in it's simplest formwas the belief in no Deity or God.


says who?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

undertheice said:


> it must be nice to be so sure of yourself, even if it is a false confidence. the state of _knowing_ something is not the black and white matter you seem to think it is. to know something is merely to _perceive_ or _understand_ it as true and this relies on a series of assumptions. our first and most dangerous assumption is that we can trust our perceptions. when those laws of the universe we so carefully describe are discovered, it is through the perception of our surroundings that they are proven. even the relatively simple laws ascribed to gravity or light are only as true as our perceptions allow us to document. trapped in a tiny segment of time and space, *that other laws may elsewhere override our own puny understandings is a possibility that must be taken into account.* considering this, our origins and any possible meaning to our existence become a giant question mark and our musings merely assumptions. it is hubris to assume that there is some constancy to the universe, the same sort of hubris that once led _scientific minds_ to believe our world to be the center of the universe.


This is simply an appeal to ignorance. It's true our senses and testing can only give us an approximation of the truth, but pointing to what we don't know and suggesting it has bearing on what we do know is nothing more than speculation. It may be that universal laws are not confined to our tiny segment of time and space. You can't infer anything from what we don't know.

Obviously if we are talking about something like sex of a kitten, opinion is irrelevant. The earth is not the center of the universe, no matter what opinion humans have about it. Obviously, your opinion about your faith, which is the context being played here, has no bearing on if that faith is correct.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 14, 2011)

> oh i see. so it was to protect themselves from the logical reasoning of religious folks?
> couldnt the religious just ask if they believe there is no god? then if the person responds yes, give the person their religious argument for why god does?
> why does the term atheism even matter?


No, now you are putting words in my mouth. I has nothing to do with anyone but the person that is prescribing to it and in my statement I said there are christians that do it too.
It comes down to the old argument that someone is more radical in their belief than another so they split and the people that are the hardliners stick with one another and the more liberal stick together.
Even within those two groups sooner or later they will reach a point where they draw the line and they break off and so on and so on until you have numerous types of Atheists. Just as stated before
you see this alot in churches today, so see no one immune to it so don't feel like you are being picked on.



> i carry a piece of paper around that says 'in god we trust' because thats what this country uses for money. because it says we trust in god does not make it true for me. its just a nice saying they put on there to shut the christians up. obviously i think it should be taken off the dollar because it is a blanket statement which is simply not true at all.


No, you carry it because it suits you, we have many forms of payment in this country so if you really were a hard line atheist you wouldn't carry it.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> No, now you are putting words in my mouth. I has nothing to do with anyone but the person that is prescribing to it and in my statement I said there are christians that do it too.
> It comes down to the old argument that someone is more radical in their belief than another so they split and the people that are the hardliners stick with one another and the more liberal stick together.
> Even within those two groups sooner or later they will reach a point where they draw the line and they break off and so on and so on until you have numerous types of Atheists. Just as stated before
> you see this alot in churches today, so see no one immune to it so don't feel like you are being picked on.


yes there are many types of atheists. it is a broad term. those that believe there is no god also arent convinced that a god exists(so they do fit the definition of atheism). but you can be an atheist and only have a lack of belief that god does exist, without the belief that god doesnt exist. you can be an agnostic atheist, which is being unconvinced that a god exists, along with the belief that humans cannot know one way or the other. by your definition, you would believe that we cannot know if god can exist, yet still believe you know god doesnt exist? arent those conflicting terms?

the belief that god doesnt exist is an additional belief that i would say a good amount of atheists prescribe to. but that doesnt mean the definition of atheism itself is the belief there is no god.



> No, you carry it because it suits you, we have many forms of payment in this country so if you really were a hard line atheist you wouldn't carry it.


i carry it because its tangible and i dont like dealing with banks. i only use my bank account for when someone far away needs to give me money for some reason, or vise versa. they just deposit it to my account at their bank. and i dont want to start using credit cards because i will get carried away and end up in debt.

being an atheist doesnt mean im afraid to hold a piece of paper that says 'in god we trust'. in fact, i dont ever really notice it unless i look at the bill closely or someone mentions it.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> No sir, you are taking the new liberal translation of the deffinition which doesn't suprise me. The deffinition says both but if you research true atheist text it states that there is no God. Now you may want to prescribe to the "New Atheist" deffinition but the true atheist like I said before would call you a false atheist. Why all the change, what was wrong with atheism as it was started in the 18th century? I will tell you what is wrong, it asked to much so they figured they would change it as they went to better suit them much the same as how so many churches distort the Bible and it's teachings today as well.


Where are your sources for this knowledge. You say, " if you research true atheist text it states that there is no God" which text are you speaking of? We do not have a written book we draw our knowledge from. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, you are arguing against a small subset of atheists who make an assertion that is exceeds the position required for atheism. Your 'spin', as you like to put it, amounts to intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty is what allows you to enter your typical song and dance routines any time this subject comes up, which includes taking a definition that clearly includes what we are saying, and contriving it to exclude that definition. Bottom line is that this is the position we take, and this is not the position you argue against.



> American currency states "IN GOD WE TRUST" which is clearly stating that there is a GOD or as you would put it a Deity. So I would think that by the true deffinition of Atheism you wouldn't be able to carry American currency in your
> pocket but rather check card, credit card, or checks because they do not have anything on them that represent a god or deity. Kind of a double standard if you ask me.


So if someone has a smurfs poster on their wall, they must believe in smurfs. And if someone does not believe in smurfs, they by definition must shun all smurf related material? Exclusion and willful ignorance are things religion engages in, atheism is not concerned with doctrine.




> I am sorry that I don't fit into your little box but my statement was very accurate. Who are you to tell anyone what is acceptable as knowledge and what is not?


We have an obvious and accepted standard for validating knowledge. This is a standard you accept and benefit from in your everyday life. Do you take medication based on solely on someone believing it will not harm you, or do you want the validation that comes from testing the knowledge. You want some indication that the drug is safe, some support for the posited knowledge. There is nothing wrong with extending this standard to the idea of a faith and a deity. You only seem to make exceptions when it benefits your belief.



> You are absolutely correct but does that make one more intelligent than the other? No, and believe it or not some people can actualy be so smart that they are litterally dumb.


Without training the human mind is fallible to mistakes, with training we can reach a state where we are aware of these mistakes and can correct for them. This is no way makes one person more intelligent than the other, it makes them more qualified to speak on the subject, and more likely to be valid than those without training.



> Look you can try and spin this all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you know what this is all about and so do others let's quit dancing around the subject shall we.
> Atheism as it was founded was in it's simplest formwas the belief in no Deity or God.


You like to accuse others of the faults you yourself display, such as spin. Here you spin our valid and applicable points to be nothing more than dancing around the subject. The subject is the very thing we are all discussing, and we are engaging it head on. To pretend we are avoiding the real issues here requires true spin.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

So is atheism the lack of belief in god or deity or the belief in no god or deity?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So is atheism the lack of belief in god or deity or the belief in no god or deity?


lack of belief in a god or deity. we are unconvinced that your or other gods exist. we do not think anyone has evidence to support the claim that god does in fact exist. thats it. an atheist by strict definition would not say that your god does not exist for sure. some do have beliefs in addition to atheism which says that your god doesnt exist. but thats not atheism itself


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> No, you carry it because it suits you, we have many forms of payment in this country so if you really were a hard line atheist you wouldn't carry it.


 Why? What exactly is a hard-line atheist and why would they avoid currency because of a slogan on it? Are these hard-line atheists not allowed to touch or read bibles either? Do they have to disown friends and family that are Christians? 

You seem to be creating a caricature of an atheist that instead of just being a non-believer, acts fucking crazy (like many religious people). You just said that atheists don't believe in god, which is true. However, that does not necessarily lead to this weird anti-theistic behavior you describe. In fact, this has to be one of the weirdest straw men I have ever heard, that atheists can't "...have anything on them that represent a god or deity." What strain are you smoking now, I wanna get me sum. 

The only reason the word atheist even exists is because there are theists. If the world wasn't full of believers, people that don't believe in a god wouldn't need to identify themselves by something they are not. Atheist began and still is an accusation. You are just upset because rational people that don't believe the same shit you do have accepted that term and made it their own. You would prefer that we stop explaining how non-belief in an extraordinary claim should be the default position in any rational discussion and just admit that we are heathens. 


I'm still waiting on that link that demonstrates that Penn says that he KNOWS there is no god. FWIW, I also don't believe there is a god. I have never claimed there is no god. Read that again. I don't make a positive assertion about the existence or non-existence of a deity. I definitely am not a theist but according to you I'm not a true atheist either.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> No, now you are putting words in my mouth. I has nothing to do with anyone but the person that is prescribing to it and in my statement I said there are christians that do it too.
> It comes down to the old argument that someone is more radical in their belief than another so they split and the people that are the hardliners stick with one another and the more liberal stick together.
> Even within those two groups sooner or later they will reach a point where they draw the line and they break off and so on and so on until you have numerous types of Atheists. Just as stated before
> you see this alot in churches today, so see no one immune to it so don't feel like you are being picked on.


It is simply because there are many positions which entail atheism, the lack of belief in god. It is not because atheists squabble over interpretation of divine text and beliefs, which is what you are describing here. How many threads have you seen here, or elsewhere, with atheists arguing among themselves over what atheism actually means? The arguments come from believers who insist on seeing atheism as a religion, and draw invalid comparisons, as you did here. There are different paths that can lead someone to atheism. Those paths can be described in the terms affixed to atheism, and indeed those paths don't always stop once atheism is reached, but sometimes go on to reach a conclusion.




> No, you carry it because it suits you, we have many forms of payment in this country so if you really were a hard line atheist you wouldn't carry it.


Again, since you are not a dumb person, this seems like intellectual dishonesty. Do you really overlook the fact that cash is convenient and readily available to anyone even if they have no checking account or are ineligible for a credit card? If they put a line promoting the tooth fairy on money do you suppose most of america would stop using it? Again you are trying to assign irrational behavior and blind conviction to something that is simply a lack of belief. These are things we find in religion, not the lack of religion. The position of hard line atheist is a strawman.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

> yes oly, i am a muslim



ok, thank you for clearing it up. I can now see why you hate religion so much... I understand your point and wish i could have known your stand along time ago before making an ass out of myself, if you really are a muslim.

that also explains why you so damn smart foo,,, llolo


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> ok, thank you for clearing it up. I can now see why you hate religion so much... I understand your point and wish i could have known your stand along time ago before making an ass out of myself, if you really are a muslim.
> 
> that also explains why you so damn smart foo,,, llolo


someone needs to invent a sarcasm button for the internet already! lol


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> someone needs to invent a sarcasm button for the internet already! lol


The rest of us have implicitly agreed to stop quoting and responding to him, which negates the need for a sarcasm button, until such time he has something of substance to say.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So is atheism the lack of belief in god or deity or the belief in no god or deity?


 It's so simple. 
Theist = someone that believes in the existence of god

Like sen.c says, atheist is the exact opposite (or more appropriately, the negation) so atheist= someone that does not believe in the existence of god. There are only two possible options available to a person, you are either a believer or a non-believer. The only reason people make this more difficult than that is because some people think they need to ascribe some sort of positive position to people they disagree with so that they can argue them down. 

Neither term can tell someone WHY a person believes or doesn't believe. For that you need to begin to put in positive descriptors. Christian, Muslim, secularist, humanist, pantheist, deist, empiricist, Buddhist, nihlist, existentialist. These are all terms that help define what a person's beliefs are which helps highlight why neither atheist OR theist gives any information about WHY a person believes or doesn't. 

To view atheism as a way of life, whether beneficial or harmful, is false and misleading. Just as failure to believe in magic elves does not entail a code of living or a set of principles, so the failure to believe in a god does not imply an specific philosophical system. 
The label 'atheist' announces ones disagreement with theism. It does not announce one's agreement with, or approval of, other atheists.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> It's so simple.
> Theist = someone that believes in the existence of god
> 
> Like sen.c says, atheist is the exact opposite (or more appropriately, the negation) so atheist= someone that does not believe in the existence of god. There are only two possible options available to a person, you are either a believer or a non-believer. The only reason people make this more difficult than that is because some people think they need to ascribe some sort of positive position to people they disagree with so that they can argue them down.
> ...


Alright chill chill,





So atheists are evil? Jk dude.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

so you aint muslim?





Luger187 said:


> someone needs to invent a sarcasm button for the internet already! lol


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

pretty much so heph... they are evil double faced cool ass dudes with long hair and a pony tail lol





Hepheastus420 said:


> Alright chill chill,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

was there a meeting of the round table that i wasnt a part of?






Heisenberg said:


> The rest of us have implicitly agreed to stop quoting and responding to him, which negates the need for a sarcasm button, until such time he has something of substance to say.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Alright chill chill,


What makes you think I'm not chill? Quit implying things about other people which you have no clue.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> What makes you think I'm not chill? Quit implying things about other people which you have no clue.


I agree with MP Hep. If you ask a math teacher to explain a formula and he does so frankly and thoroughly, you wouldn't see this as being hostile or aggressive.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> What makes you think I'm not chill? Quit implying things about other people which you have no clue.


 The whole post was a joke. But I'm assuming you are not so chill now. So chill. Also what are these things that I am implying towards other people?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I agree with MP Hep. If you ask a math teacher to explain a formula and he does so frankly and thoroughly, you wouldn't see this as being hostile or aggressive.


I never said he was being hostile. I was jut saying chill because he gave paragraphs when all I asked for was a sentence or two. But I guess if he wants to go on explaining forever then he can. I was just joking around and saying he didn't have to write all that. Damn people can't take jokes.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I never said he was being hostile. I was jut saying chill because he gave paragraphs when all I asked for was a sentence or two. But I guess if he wants to go on explaining forever then he can. I was just joking around and saying he didn't have to write all that. Damn people can't take jokes.


You fault people for not taking a joke when you offer no way to know you were joking? If you are going to be j/k, it helps if what you post is actually funny (or at least use smilies as that's what they are for). 

It should be obvious the point you made is obviously not being understood by certain people in spite of multiple explanations, I really am curious now why you think a detailed explanation is not warranted.

Damn people can't make jokes.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

Hmm I thought I said Jk, I guess you don't know what that means. Jk usually means just KIDDING. Either way go mindphuk yourself.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

i think that would apply to all atheists' MP... you never got the point me and heph have been trying to make that you all are implying shit that we aint partaking in or ever will...









mindphuk said:


> What makes you think I'm not chill?  Quit implying things about other people which you have no clue.[/QUOTE]


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

well in what tone was it explained? 






Heisenberg said:


> I agree with MP Hep. If you ask a math teacher to explain a formula and he does so frankly and thoroughly, you wouldn't see this as being hostile or aggressive.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hmm I thought I said Jk, I guess you don't know what that means. Jk usually means just KIDDING. Either way go mindphuk yourself.


j/k does usually mean kidding but you actually have to write it, not just imagine it.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> j/k does usually mean kidding but you actually have to write it, not just imagine it.


Alright I'm done with this little argument here. I will say this though. Check the bottom of the post where I said chill chill.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i think that would apply to all atheists' MP... you never got the point me and heph have been trying to make that you all are implying shit that we aint partaking in or ever will...


You seem to think a lot of things about atheists that aren't true. Neither you or Hep have demonstrated that "we" have actually implied anything about you but I do understand you believe these things happened. What I just explained to Hep about atheists not having anything in common except for the thing they don't believe seems to go over your head. You're irrational hatred of atheists is getting really boring and now quite obnoxious especially when you rant in those threads that don't have anything to do with belief and religion. For some time you and I were getting along well I thought. I really don't know why you persist in this puerile behavior, even if you initially thought it was funny, you now have lost any ability to actually engage in discussion as no one here takes you seriously at all.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 14, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Alright I'm done with this little argument here. I will say this though. Check the bottom of the post where I said chill chill.


There has been no argument from my side. You seem to have thought you wrote something witty and misinterpreted the tone of my reply. You need to stop telling me to chill.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> There has been no argument from my side. You seem to have thought you wrote something witty and misinterpreted the tone of my reply. You need to stop telling me to chill.


Alright I guess I'm not done with this. I never thought I wrote something witty. So don't imply that I'm that cocky. Are you mad when I say chill?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

I see a thread lock coming...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I see a thread lock coming...


Not unless I apologize to mindphuk for any misunderstandings.
Sorry mp, I didn't mean for that post to be negative. That was not my intention, peace bro.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

how so? you all name we name call, its equal





Heisenberg said:


> I see a thread lock coming...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

go smoke a bowl... is that better?






mindphuk said:


> There has been no argument from my side. You seem to have thought you wrote something witty and misinterpreted the tone of my reply. You need to stop telling me to chill.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 14, 2011)

> It's so simple.
> Theist = someone that believes in the existence of god
> 
> Like sen.c says, atheist is the exact opposite (or more appropriately, the negation) so atheist= someone that does not believe in the existence of god. There are only two possible options available to a person, you are either a believer or a non-believer. The only reason people make this more difficult than that is because some people think they need to ascribe some sort of positive position to people they disagree with so that they can argue them down.
> ...


Very well said sir, kudos.


----------



## skiweeds (Sep 14, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i saw someone mention this in a thread. id like to hear why you may think atheism is bad


because you go to hell


----------

