# hatred for being an atheist



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 27, 2013)

I've mentioned not really believing in god before, but today I mentioned how I'm an atheist to my parents while talking about religion. I didn't want to lie about a belief in god, so I let them know. My dad shared his religious views. He told me not to worry too much, but I'm not supposed to deny god. He also said nobody knows and that he questions it too. BUT I'm still not supposed to deny god. My mom was just very disappointed. Kept saying it was her FAULT (which means she finds a fault in me too) because she didn't take me to church as a kid. She said she should have done better. Not many people can get to me, but that one hurt. I feel like shit right now honestly. Starting to think I may end up in hell and eat my words. I wouldn't consider this hatred as I've experienced true hate due to my lack of belief, but this really hit me in a bad way. Just wondering if anybody else has gone through something like this either from family or a close friend. I honestly don't care if I offend a strangers beliefs, but when my own mom is truly disappointed in me, well it sucks! 

&#8220;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 

&#8220;&#8216;a man against his father, 
a daughter against her mother, 
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law&#8212; 
a man&#8217;s enemies will be the members of his own household. 

&#8220;Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.


----------



## NorthofEngland (Oct 27, 2013)

That's how Christianity perpetuates itself. Family and peer pressure to accept the indoctrination of a bronze age system of middle eastern superstitions. For people who actually do start to study Christianity it's not long before large sections of it's history and the Bible are revealed to them as hate filled and hateful. The Westboro Baptist Church is probably the closest, in belief and attitude, to Churches of the past. ALSO try to read about *PASCALS WAGER. *


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 27, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I've mentioned not really believing in god before, but today I mentioned how I'm an atheist to my parents while talking about religion. I didn't want to lie about a belief in god, so I let them know. My dad shared his religious views. He told me not to worry too much, but I'm not supposed to deny god. He also said nobody knows and that he questions it too. BUT I'm still not supposed to deny god. My mom was just very disappointed. Kept saying it was her FAULT (which means she finds a fault in me too) because she didn't take me to church as a kid. She said she should have done better. Not many people can get to me, but that one hurt. I feel like shit right now honestly. Starting to think I may end up in hell and eat my words. I wouldn't consider this hatred as I've experienced true hate due to my lack of belief, but this really hit me in a bad way. Just wondering if anybody else has gone through something like this either from family or a close friend. I honestly don't care if I offend a strangers beliefs, but when my own mom is truly disappointed in me, well it sucks!
> 
> Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
> 
> ...


Imagine believing something so steadily that it terrified you. 

Your mom is brainwashed. It makes sense that she would react the way she did considering the penalties she _thinks _you will endure in the afterlife. 


Next time you talk about god with your rents, try not _denying_ god, but just stating that until you are convinced an entity exists you can't have a belief; it just doesn't work. It would be a false belief. Does pretending to think Santa is real around children make you actually have a belief in Santa? No, and pretending to believe in god while in Church isn't going to give you a belief in god either. For people who require evidence before belief, there's nothing short seeing _evidence_ that will cause them to form a belief. No amount of old books, that have been translated dozens of times and were never written first hand by anyone who witnessed anything, in a time when 'disease' was god's pestilence, will make someone who values evidence/logic/the truth, believe in such things.

Ask your mom why she's not a Muslim or a Hindu, or why she doesn't believe in witchcraft or Voodoo... when she can answer your questions, she should be able to understand why you're not a Christian.


----------



## GreyLord (Oct 27, 2013)

Yeah N of E is right. My family has disowned me since I stopped believing a man-made religion that's been compiled from many various sources. Watch Zeitgeist. Even better read 'The Bible Fraud' by Tony Bushby. Both are eye-openers.


----------



## CC Dobbs (Oct 27, 2013)

I hate you too and I'm an atheist. If mom has a closed mind to any other opinion but the one she was taught then you cannot help but disappoint her. Everybody will be better because of this.


----------



## Moldy (Oct 27, 2013)

Hold your head up and be proud you don't believe in talking snakes and shit. Don't let them wear you down. You have science on your side. You have truth and a good mind since your reasoning is sharper and uncompromising. Tell them you done worshiping the sky fairy and to quit with the fairy tales. Maybe you can convince them to put down that dirty book... the bible. 

Go to this site and read a few quotes from Dawkins. It will improve your confidence. 

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_dawkins.html


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 27, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Imagine believing something so steadily that it terrified you.
> 
> Your mom is brainwashed. It makes sense that she would react the way she did considering the penalties she _thinks _you will endure in the afterlife.
> 
> ...


Yeah I get what you're saying. If I truly believed in god and hell, I'd be sad to see my kid (if I had a kid) not believe in him.. knowing he will one day go to hell. It's a very sad thought. I don't believe the stories in the bible, but even now, I feel guilty. I don't know why, it's not even a fear of hell.. just guilt. 

I'm very respectful when I talk to them about religion. So I let them know that I do not know much. And that they COULD be right, I could be wrong. But still, I just can't believe. They didn't get mad, my dad agreed with alot of what I had to say. My mom was just very saddened. I have asked why they believe in jesus, but not anybody else. They just tell me that's the way they were raised. She is stubborn, in a nice way. 

I was venting yesterday, but today I feel even worse. The guilt is building again. Do any of you guys ever feel guilty for being an atheist? I'm stuck in the middle. I can not believe in the stories from the bible.. or any other religion that I've looked into. But I still have slight worries about what will happen when I die. If I should listen to the bible. It wasn't beaten into me as a kid, they raised their four kids without forcing it on us. Never took us to church, not even for holidays. Never read the bible to us, never bought a bible for us. I just know I was much happier when I had faith.

It was weird for me to hear my dad agree with alot of what I said. Him agreeing with me made me feel like I was crushing him, taking away his comfort blanket. I feel like shit when they say they believe in god, because I can't stop thinking in my mind how they CAN believe. I feel guilty when decent points against the bible are made. I wish this feeling would go away. I don't think it will though.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 27, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah I get what you're saying. If I truly believed in god and hell, I'd be sad to see my kid (if I had a kid) not believe in him.. knowing he will one day go to hell. It's a very sad thought. I don't believe the stories in the bible, but even now, I feel guilty. I don't know why, it's not even a fear of hell.. just guilt.
> 
> I'm very respectful when I talk to them about religion. So I let them know that I do not know much. And that they COULD be right, I could be wrong. But still, I just can't believe. They didn't get mad, my dad agreed with alot of what I had to say. My mom was just very saddened. I have asked why they believe in jesus, but not anybody else. They just tell me that's the way they were raised. She is stubborn, in a nice way.
> 
> ...



Your guilt is misplaced.

It's normal to want to please your parents, but you have to stop living in their paradigm. Maybe you just shouldn't talk about religion with them if it makes you feel guilty?


Personally, when I was first exploring atheism I would get panicked sometimes when I thought about what if god really exists; but I got over it eventually. I don't walk around hoping to not run into black cats, or avoiding ladders, and I don't walk around worrying about what an invisible person that has yet to prove they exist, thinks about me or what I'm doing. 

Everything fades with time.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 27, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Your guilt is misplaced.
> 
> It's normal to want to please your parents, but you have to stop living in their paradigm. Maybe you just shouldn't talk about religion with them if it makes you feel guilty?
> 
> ...


I believe I feel bad because I _want_ to believe so badly, but I can't. Yup, that's it. Thank you for your answers beef. and yeah, now that they know my beliefs, I'm just gonna let it rest and hopefully they'll grow to accept it. I'm sure they'll be fine the next time I talk to them. Dude, seriously, thanks for helping clear this up in my head. My guilt is going away again, I'm feeling better. And I hadn't really thought of religion the same way as avoiding ladders and such. Every once in a while when I go under a ladder, the thought pops in my head, but I don't worry about it. I just understand it's a superstition for some. I'm going to view religion the same way now. I'm realizing now that I don't fear the bible, nor do I worry about what will happen. The guilt comes from thinking I _should_ believe, but I simply don't. So now I'm just gonna relax and wait for any leftover feelings to go away. thanks!


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 27, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I believe I feel bad because I _want_ to believe so badly, but I can't. Yup, that's it. Thank you for your answers beef. and yeah, now that they know my beliefs, I'm just gonna let it rest and hopefully they'll grow to accept it. I'm sure they'll be fine the next time I talk to them. Dude, seriously, thanks for helping clear this up in my head. My guilt is going away again, I'm feeling better. And I hadn't really thought of religion the same way as avoiding ladders and such. Every once in a while when I go under a ladder, the thought pops in my head, but I don't worry about it. I just understand it's a superstition for some. I'm going to view religion the same way now. I'm realizing now that I don't fear the bible, nor do I worry about what will happen. The guilt comes from thinking I _should_ believe, but I simply don't. So now I'm just gonna relax and wait for any leftover feelings to go away. thanks!


No problem, homie! We've all been there.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 27, 2013)

Hey, Hep! Sorry you had to go through that, but your immediate family is the most challenging when it comes to your atheism. I went through it with them when I was like 16, so we got it out of the way early. When my son was born, it was more difficult: I instructed them not to bring instill any magical thinking in him; no Santa, magic, Disney, god or jesus. They went fucking nuts, crying, yelling, the whole nine yards. But, they got used to it. Now, my kid is having a hell of a time in school trying to fit in to a social group. He's great looking, smart, funny and talented, but ever since they found out he was an atheist a couple years ago, they pick on him and exclude him from things. His school is 95% WASP kids, and the rest are jews. They're are only three atheists in his school. I do feel guilty from time to time having raised my son atheist in light of the trouble he's having, but I think it's better and healthier in the long run. I reassure him that when he hits HS soon, he will meet a lot more like minded people there. But BB's right, time will smooth this over. Glad you're feeling better, keep your chin up, my friend...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Oct 27, 2013)

When I was going through some tough times my grandma came to talk to me and she scheduled a meeting with her priest to talk to me. I very politely told her that I would get no comfort or guidance from a priest and thats when she piped up and said "Jesus is the only way!". I told her I couldnt believe that and I briefly and respectfully explained why and I could see her eyes fill with tears while I was explaining. She was more hurt about me rejecting Christianity than the troubles I was going through, she didnt argue with me though, she was just heart broken that Im apparently going to spend eternity burning in hell. I still love my grandma though... For me, its hard to feel guilty when someone thinks about you like that. That many of your loved ones deserve to burn in hell because they share different beliefs. So I felt no guilt. I also had this beef with fundamental Christianity ever since my mid teens and it kept growing through the years. I just hate how Christianity has destroyed our culture and now most of my people are Christian. My story isnt really relevant to your situation but I thought it was worth saying lol.


----------



## sunni (Oct 27, 2013)

hep you and i have been great friends.

athetist , buddhist, christian, catholic, ect ect everyone imho should be able ot believe what they wanna believe, and everyone should feel they are right. 
they will come to terms with it love will over come the issue.



tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Hep! Sorry you had to go through that, but your immediate family is the most challenging when it comes to your atheism. I went through it with them when I was like 16, so we got it out of the way early. When my son was born, it was more difficult: I instructed them not to bring instill any magical thinking in him; no Santa, magic, Disney, god or jesus. They went fucking nuts, crying, yelling, the whole nine yards. But, they got used to it. Now, my kid is having a hell of a time in school trying to fit in to a social group. He's great looking, smart, funny and talented, but ever since they found out he was an atheist a couple years ago, they pick on him and exclude him from things. His school is 95% WASP kids, and the rest are jews. They're are only three atheists in his school. I do feel guilty from time to time having raised my son atheist in light of the trouble he's having, but I think it's better and healthier in the long run. I reassure him that when he hits HS soon, he will meet a lot more like minded people there. But BB's right, time will smooth this over. Glad you're feeling better, keep your chin up, my friend...


while i may not truly believe in god or whatever i wouldnt ever deny my children the right to santa or christmas, or disney...

do you feel maybe you took away the CHILD from your children? imaginations and magic are wonderful things.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 27, 2013)

sunni said:


> while i may not truly believe in god or whatever i wouldnt ever deny my children the right to santa or christmas, or disney...
> 
> do you feel maybe you took away the CHILD from your children? imaginations and magic are wonderful things.


Hey, Sunni. My boy has always had an amazing imagination, and he still LOVES christmas: the food, presents, the decor, the warmth of gathering family and friends. He has also liked the santa claus myth. The only difference is that my child knew the difference between reality and fantasy, but this didn't take away from his love of fantasy and pretending. I don't know why most adults equate bullshit, lies and magical thinking with childhood. Imagination is not dependent on any of these things. It seems to me the children that are inundated with bullshit as reality spend the rest of their lives attempting to overcome it, and we can see how it hampers their cognitive and critical thinking abilities through adulthood. There are so many beautiful, wonderful and amazing aspects of our world and the cosmos for our children to fathom, I don't see the need for inferior and silly false realities adults impose on children. Maybe I'm missing something...


----------



## sunni (Oct 27, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Sunni. My boy has always had an amazing imagination, and he still LOVES christmas: the food, presents, the decor, the warmth of gathering family and friends. He has also liked the santa claus myth. The only difference is that my child knew the difference between reality and fantasy, but this didn't take away from his love of fantasy and pretending. I don't know why most adults equate bullshit, lies and magical thinking with childhood. Imagination is not dependent on any of these things. It seems to me the children that are inundated with bullshit as reality spend the rest of their lives attempting to overcome it, and we can see how it hampers their cognitive and critical thinking abilities through adulthood. There are so many beautiful, wonderful and amazing aspects of our world and the cosmos for our children to fathom, I don't see the need for inferior and silly false realities adults impose on children. Maybe I'm missing something...


ok you made it seem in your original post that hes like banned from anything like that .you still introduce it but he just knows the adult version however still enjoys it like the rest of us than im okay with that and that is just fine and dandy however banning a child from anything like those kinda things i think is slightly wrong


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 27, 2013)

sunni said:


> ok you made it seem in your original post that hes like banned from anything like that .you still introduce it but he just knows the adult version however still enjoys it like the rest of us than im okay with that and that is just fine and dandy however banning a child from anything like those kinda things i think is slightly wrong


Well, as long as you're okay with it


----------



## Jack Harer (Oct 27, 2013)

sunni said:


> hep you and i have been great friends.
> 
> athetist , buddhist, christian, catholic, ect ect everyone imho should be able ot believe what they wanna believe, and everyone should feel they are right.
> they will come to terms with it love will over come the issue.
> ...


Very well said Sunni!

Hephaestus, the very guilt you are experience is a product of religion. It's one of the control mechanisms. We all have to find our own beliefs. It is MY opinion that _religion_ is a man-made concept used to control man. We're indoctrinated from birth to believe in the _religion _of our parents, and taught that it is blasphemy to question it. As were our parents, and theirs before them.
_Spirituality_ on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Good luck. You've done nothing wrong to feel guilt for.


----------



## fg2020 (Oct 27, 2013)

People who think that they are going to live forever have never given a second thought to just how long a time that actually is.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 27, 2013)

Belief in the whimsical is part of what makes childhood such a magical period in our lives. I can't imagine if my parents had stolen those things away from me at such a young age. I remember my mom yelling at my older cousins, when they told me there was no santa when I was 5. My aunt and uncle are devout Christians who also do no agree with letting there kids experience childhood for all that its worth. Although your son is a smart, well adjusted, young man, he missed out on so much of what makes childhood, childhood. Imagination has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The real issue is that your son has missed out on a CRUCIAL understanding that developes within us all at an early age, and that is the REALITY that _anything is __possible_ within the universe that we live in. This is something children have an acute understanding of, and is strengthened and reinforced by the fun and whimsical worlds that we've created for them to enjoy and take part in. It's only later on in life, that our own hardships, coupled with the beliefs of society at large, that brainwash us into forgetting what we've all known since a young age. This is not a dig at anyone, however, it is my personal belief that atheism should not be taught to children. If a parent is an atheist, I believe that they should choose to forgo conveying those beliefs on their child. Most religions teach and indoctrinate their children, with the belief that doing so, will ensure the safe passage and continuation of their children's souls into the afterlife. Since atheists have no such concerns, I don't see why there would be any reason to force these beliefs onto a child. Believe it or not, these are very bleak and scary concepts for a child to comprehend.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 27, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Belief in the whimsical is part of what makes childhood such a magical period in our lives. I can't imagine if my parents had stolen those things away from me at such a young age. I remember my mom yelling at my older cousins, when they told me there was no santa when I was 5. My aunt and uncle are devout Christians who also do no agree with letting there kids experience childhood for all that its worth. Although your son is a smart, well adjusted, young man, he missed out on so much of what makes childhood, childhood. Imagination has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The real issue is that your son has missed out on a CRUCIAL understanding that developes within us all at an early age, and that is the REALITY that _anything is __possible_ within the universe that we live in. This is something children have an acute understanding of, and is strengthened and reinforced by the fun and whimsical worlds that we've created for them to enjoy and take part in. It's only later on in life, that our own hardships, coupled with the beliefs of society at large, that brainwash us into forgetting what we've all known since a young age. This is not a dig at anyone, however, it is my personal belief that atheism should not be taught to children. If a parent is an atheist, I believe that they should choose to forgo conveying those beliefs on their child. Most religions teach and indoctrinate their children, with the belief that doing so, will ensure the safe passage and continuation of their children's souls into the afterlife. Since atheists have no such concerns, I don't see why there would be any reason to force these beliefs onto a child. Believe it or not, these are very bleak and scary concepts for a child to comprehend.


If a child never knows the fear of a religion, how would they ever know what they're missing?


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 27, 2013)

I don't understand the question...


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 27, 2013)

You can be certain that they'll have learned all about religion by the time that they become teenagers (likely long before that). Religion is a subject that cannot be avoided in the world that we live in. Children are bombarded with religion every day of their lives, whether be it from watching TV, or hearing about it from friends/teachers/family, you can rest assured that they will know all about religion at a young age. Even without their parents guidance on the subject.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 27, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Belief in the whimsical is part of what makes childhood such a magical period in our lives. I can't imagine if my parents had stolen those things away from me at such a young age. I remember my mom yelling at my older cousins, when they told me there was no santa when I was 5. My aunt and uncle are devout Christians who also do no agree with letting there kids experience childhood for all that its worth. Although your son is a smart, well adjusted, young man, he missed out on so much of what makes childhood, childhood. Imagination has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The real issue is that your son has missed out on a CRUCIAL understanding that developes within us all at an early age, and that is the REALITY that _anything is __possible_ within the universe that we live in. This is something children have an acute understanding of, and is strengthened and reinforced by the fun and whimsical worlds that we've created for them to enjoy and take part in.


That's just it, anything is possible _within the laws of physics_. We can't simply wish really, really hard and the things we desire pop into existence, we can't read people's exact thoughts or move things with our minds (as many children's stories portray). Nature and physics work in a real, concrete way, and it's important for a child to learn what is in their power to do, and what is simply fantasy. If not, you may get shit like this - 

[video=youtube;9j4VuqWcPkM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j4VuqWcPkM[/video]



> It's only later on in life, that our own hardships, coupled with the beliefs of society at large, that brainwash us into forgetting what we've all known since a young age.


Neither I, or almost anyone close to me, has lost the ability to recognize and strive to fulfill our potential. But I see it happen to most people I experience...



> This is not a dig at anyone, however, it is my personal belief that atheism should not be taught to children. If a parent is an atheist, I believe that they should choose to forgo conveying those beliefs on their child. Most religions teach and indoctrinate their children, with the belief that doing so, will ensure the safe passage and continuation of their children's souls into the afterlife. Since atheists have no such concerns, I don't see why there would be any reason to force these beliefs onto a child. Believe it or not, these are very bleak and scary concepts for a child to comprehend.


We must keep in mind that ALL children are born atheists until they are taught otherwise. Out of the many atheist and secular humanist children I've encountered, I've haven't yet seen any trauma from teaching children reality. We teach them that we are extremely fortunate to have been born and have a chance at life (the odds against any of us being here, esp. considering how many could have been here in our place, is astronomical), that our world and the cosmos are awe inspiring and fascinating places, and that we need to experience as much progress and joy in our short time here as possible. These concepts of reality are neither bleak nor scary, unlike a LOT of religious tripe (sin, submission, eternal damnation, etc.)...


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 28, 2013)

I'd like to start off by saying that I myself, have wrestled with my own faith and religion for many years now. I wouldn't call myself an atheist but I often struggle to believe in a god, and have nearly lost all faith in the story of Christs' resurrection (which is what I was taught as a child). I just want to clarify that I have no judgments or pregidous against anyone's beliefs or opinions. Having gotten that out of the way, I have to strongly disagree with you on your comments regarding the laws of physics. The fact is, we have absolutely no idea how many ACTUAL laws of physics are at play in our universe, or how they might counteract and/or interact with one another. There is however, one law of physics that cannot be refuted and it's called the _l__aw of attraction. _This is a topic that I could speak 100,000 characters on, and still not have fully conveyed the power that this one law has on our existance. There is a little known fact that human beings have just recently begun to rediscover, and that fact is that ANYTHING is possible. Anything at all. All a person has to do is truly BELIEVE. Each and every one of the things that you listed above are all indeed possible, however hard it may be for you to believe that. The human brain and it's connection with the laws of attraction, combine to create a force that can make even the seemingly "impossible", possible. Although the last couple minutes of the video that you posted were pretty laughable, everything that that boy spoke before that was EXACTLY right and 100% true. I'm actually ASTONISHED that someone his age is able to comprehend such things. I understand that you posted that particular video to convey a negative side of a childs whimsical mind, but on the contrary, to me it conveyed the fact that teaching our children to have an open mind at a young age, can lead to nothing but amazing things and limitless possibilities. I believe with all my heart, that that boy has an extremely bright future ahead of him. If he had concentrated his mind on something a little less specific than becoming a made up race of demigod, he might have actually achieved something remarkable. Alas, in all actuality he probably wouldn't have, considering that it was most likely his first attempt at harnessing such abilities (no I'm not talking super saiyan abilities lol, I'm talking abilities of the mind). It takes most people years, if not decades to be able to master such seemingly simple things as telekenesis. The bottom line is that we as human beings are just now beginning to understand the limitless powers of our minds, and every year that goes by, there is more and more undisputable evidence to prove this. Have you ever heard the saying, "you make your own luck"? This statement could not possibly be any truer. If a person goes through life with a negative attitude, constantly exuding negativity, speaking of and dwelling on negative things, and believing that negative things will happen to them.... then that person will attract and be dealt nothing but negativity in every aspect of their life. The exact same can be said for positivity, and the reason for this, harkens back to the the ONE undisputable law at play in our universe.... the law of attraction. It's important for humanity as a whole to be made privy to this information, otherwise we'll all just go through life without ever knowing the truth (whether we choose to believe it or not). I realize that neither of us will be here to witness this, but I promise you, that in a couple hundreds years (hopefully alot less) people will be doing, with ease, all of the things that you place within in the realm of "childrens stories"..... Holy shit, I got a little off topic for a second there lol, oh well. Anyway, I'm with ya on the whole sin and eternal damnation thing being bleak and scary (I don't believe in such things either, and these are the sorts of things that turned me off to religion at a young age). However the thought of no longer existing after you die is pretty fucking scary too lol.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 28, 2013)

^^ Wow. I found The Secret to be pretty boring even when Oprah was touting it in '06. Your post is an excellent example of what I attempt to keep my child away from. If you'd like to post any links to credible sources (peer reviewed, scientific sources please, no crazy YT or new age sites) to support your views, I'd be more than happy to take a look. Otherwise, no thanks...


----------



## ricky1lung (Oct 28, 2013)

Don't worry, the pope has said atheists can go to heaven too. 


http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20131003/OPINION/310030015/Statement-doesn-t-match-scripture?nclick_check=1


> Pope Francis recently assured atheists that they dont have to believe in God to go to heaven. Stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they would just follow their consciences, the pope said, You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those we dont believe and who dont seek the faith. I start by saying, and this is the fundamental thing, that Gods mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere, contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.Fellay attacked Francis for advancing a new format for the Catholic Mass, following in the path of Vatican II, and for suggesting the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality, but not homosexuals, and that even atheists might achieve salvation if they live according to conscience.
> ​


----------



## ginjawarrior (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> How did I know you'd turn into a dick as soon as you heard something that goes against your bleak, apathetic views on existence. I don't gotta post any links or prove shit to your ignorant unenlightened ass. It would seem that you've heard this truth before. Why don't you prove to me that there aint a god..... hmm, thats what I fucking thought. And guess what, when YOU die, YOU might very well cease to exist, because that's what YOU choose to believe. So by all means, go ahead and teach your son that shit, and the same fate might befall him too. Oh and I'm guessing that the reason hes getting his ass kicked at school, is probably because hes going around preaching about his atheism and talking down to others who don't share his forcedfed beliefs.... kinda like his ignorant douchebag of a father. Go cook some meth, and stimulate the economy. That'll be the culmination of your feeble existence, right there in a nutshell.


Lol the dulcet tones of "enlightenment" it always amazes me the serenity you guys give off
Anyway instead of spitting venom at Tyler and his kid shouldn't you be following the law of attraction and look within to work out what bad feelings of your own caused you to attract his post to you?

Without such insight I'd hate to think what your attracting with you tirade above

​


----------



## ricky1lung (Oct 28, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Lol the dulcet tones of "enlightenment"&#8482; it always amazes me the serenity you guys give off
> Anyway instead of spitting venom at Tyler and his kid shouldn't you be following the law of attraction and look within to work out what bad feelings of your own caused you to attract his post to you?
> 
> Without such insight I'd hate to think what your attracting with you tirade above
> ...


My sarcasm was lost on him. 
It is yet another shift in the teachings to suit the times.
Just like many more changes that came before, the "leaders" are attempting to gain a new base of followers.

The world views of equality and acceptance of gay rights has forced a "policy change" so they can attempt
to remain relevant while losing large swaths of traditional followers.

The Atheist comment I posted is offensive to followers as well as atheists.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> How did I know you'd turn into a dick as soon as you heard something that goes against your bleak, apathetic views on existence. I don't gotta post any links or prove shit to your ignorant unenlightened ass. It would seem that you've heard this truth before. *Why don't you prove to me that there aint a god..... hmm, thats what I fucking thought.* And guess what, when YOU die, YOU might very well cease to exist, because that's what YOU choose to believe. So by all means, go ahead and teach your son that shit, and the same fate might befall him too. Oh and I'm guessing that the reason hes getting his ass kicked at school, is probably because hes going around preaching about his atheism and talking down to others who don't share his forcedfed beliefs.... kinda like his ignorant douchebag of a father. Go cook some meth and stimulate the economy. That'll be the culmination of your feeble existence, right there in a nutshell.



When is belief *ever *the default position?

Do you believe in Leprechauns until they're disproven? 

Do you believe in Pegasus until it's disproven?

No. You believe once you have a reason to believe, not the other way around. Are you really that dense?


----------



## ricky1lung (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Gee, heres ANOTHER post that makes no sense.... I'll address the highlighted portion my post since I don't have any idea what your babbling about. He told me to PROVE my beliefs by posting "credible" sources. I told him to PROVE that there ain't a god.... What, you didn't detect the sarcasm there? He's the dumbass who's telling me to prove things than can't be proven. I was showing him how stupid he sounded while doing so. Understand now, or are you really that _dense_?


We can prove how the story changed over centuries.

Can you prove that any of the thousands/millions of gods are real? Keep in mind if their are thousands/millions of gods someone is wrong.

I just gave a perfect example of the pope of today attempting to change the story again.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 28, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Is this not exactly what you are doing as Tyler explained something to you that went against your bleak, apathetic views on existence? It seems apparent to me which one of you is actually being the douche bag.


Let's see, for one thing, my views on existence aren't bleak or apathetic.... (I would suggest picking up a dictionary.) Secondly, please point out the part of that post where Tyler explained something that went against my existence. I think that when you see how your above comment is completely invalid, you'll see that I'm not the douchebag. Yep, when you come at me I'm going to shut you down, but that doesn't make me a douchebag. Is there any more of Tyler's friends in here that wanna come to his rescue?


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 28, 2013)

ricky1lung said:


> We can prove how the story changed over centuries.
> 
> Can you prove that any of the thousands/millions of gods are real? Keep in mind if their are thousands/millions of gods someone is wrong.
> 
> I just gave a perfect example of the pope of today attempting to change the story again.


I'll let my response in the post that you quoted answer that question for you....


----------



## ricky1lung (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> I'll let my response in the post that you quoted answer that question for you....


No no, you don't get an out like that. You are here attacking people and asking for proof.
You want a discussion so lets discuss facts.

Don't look for the first cowardly exit when valid facts are presented.

Who's god is the real one? 
Would it be yours as you seem to denounce everyone's beliefs except your own, or is it that there 
are more gods than days of the year? Or perhaps everyone is wrong and there are no fairies in the sky.

Ah a fresh god for you to follow everyday if you believe.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Gee, heres ANOTHER post that makes no sense.... I'll address the highlighted portion of my post since I don't have any idea what your babbling about. He told me to PROVE my beliefs by posting "credible" sources. I told him to PROVE that there ain't a god.... What, you didn't detect the sarcasm there? He's the dumbass who's telling me to prove things that can't be proven. I was showing him how stupid he sounded while doing so. Understand now, or are you really that _dense_?


Can't you read your own writing?

You said;

"Why don't you prove to me that there aint a god..... hmm, thats what I fucking thought."


Then I said;

When is belief ever the default position?
Do you believe in Leprechauns until they're disproven? 
Do you believe in Pegasus until it's disproven?
No. You believe once you have a reason to believe, not the other way around. 
Are you really that dense?


Then you said;

Gee, heres ANOTHER post that makes no sense.... I'll address the highlighted portion of my post since I don't have any idea what your babbling about. He told me to PROVE my beliefs by posting "credible" sources. I told him to PROVE that there ain't a god.... What, you didn't detect the sarcasm there? He's the dumbass who's telling me to prove things that can't be proven. I was showing him how stupid he sounded while doing so. Understand now, or are you really that dense?


It makes perfect sense. There is no sarcasm button to announce how sarcastic you're being.

Also, proving that god doesn't exist is a negative claim. Proving the law of attraction is real, is a positive claim and is subject to scrutiny. 

You can't prove something doesn't exist because you can't simultaneously search everywhere in existence at the same time, but you can prove the existence of something, e.g. the law of attraction, by testing it. 

From this side, it sounds like you're arguing for the existence of the law of attraction. Things that exist have properties and are testable. Until you can test the law of attraction and show that it exists, there's no reason to believe so.


Do you not understand the difference between positive and negative claims?


----------



## ricky1lung (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> I'd like to start off by saying that I myself, have wrestled with my own faith and religion for many years now. I wouldn't call myself an atheist but I often struggle to believe in a god, and have nearly lost all faith in the story of Christs' resurrection (which is what I was taught as a child). I just want to clarify that I have no judgments or pregidous against anyone's beliefs or opinions. Having gotten that out of the way, I have to strongly disagree with you on your comments regarding the laws of physics. The fact is, we have absolutely no idea how many ACTUAL laws of physics are at play in our universe, or how they might counteract and/or interact with one another. There is however, one law of physics that cannot be refuted and it's called the _l__aw of attraction. _This is a topic that I could speak 100,000 characters on, and still not have fully conveyed the power that this one law has on our existance. There is a little known fact that human beings have just recently begun to rediscover, and that fact is that ANYTHING is possible. Anything at all. All a person has to do is truly BELIEVE. Each and every one of the things that you listed above are all indeed possible, however hard it may be for you to believe that. The human brain and it's connection with the laws of attraction, combine to create a force that can make even the seemingly "impossible", possible. Although the last couple minutes of the video that you posted were pretty laughable, everything that that boy spoke before that was EXACTLY right and 100% true. I'm actually ASTONISHED that someone his age is able to comprehend such things. I understand that you posted that particular video to convey a negative side of a childs whimsical mind, but on the contrary, to me it conveyed the fact that teaching our children to have an open mind at a young age, can lead to nothing but amazing things and limitless possibilities. I believe with all my heart, that that boy has an extremely bright future ahead of him. If he had concentrated his mind on something a little less specific than becoming a made up race of demigod, he might have actually achieved something remarkable. Alas, in all actuality he probably wouldn't have, considering that it was most likely his first attempt at harnessing such abilities (no I'm not talking super saiyan abilities lol, I'm talking abilities of the mind). It takes most people years, if not decades to be able to master such seemingly simple things as telekenesis. The bottom line is that we as human beings are just now beginning to understand the limitless powers of our minds, and every year that goes by, there is more and more undisputable evidence to prove this. Have you ever heard the saying, "you make your own luck"? This statement could not possibly be any truer. If a person goes through life with a negative attitude, constantly exuding negativity, speaking of and dwelling on negative things, and believing that negative things will happen to them.... then that person will attract and be dealt nothing but negativity in every aspect of their life. The exact same can be said for positivity, and the reason for this, harkens back to the the ONE undisputable law at play in our universe.... the law of attraction. It's important for humanity as a whole to be made privy to this information, otherwise we'll all just go through life without ever knowing the truth (whether we choose to believe it or not). I realize that neither of us will be here to witness this, but I promise you, that in a couple hundreds years (hopefully alot less) people will be doing, with ease, all of the things that you place within in the realm of "childrens stories"..... Holy shit, I got a little off topic for a second there lol, oh well. Anyway, I'm with ya on the whole sin and eternal damnation thing being bleak and scary (I don't believe in such things either, and these are the sorts of things that turned me off to religion at a young age). However the thought of no longer existing after you die is pretty fucking scary too lol.





SeniorFrostyKush said:


> How did I know you'd turn into a dick as soon as you heard something that goes against your bleak, apathetic views on existence. I don't gotta post any links or prove shit to your ignorant unenlightened ass. It would seem that you've heard this truth before. Why don't you prove to me that there aint a god..... hmm, thats what I fucking thought. And guess what, when YOU die, YOU might very well cease to exist, because that's what YOU choose to believe. So by all means, go ahead and teach your son that shit, and the same fate might befall him too. Oh and I'm guessing that the reason hes getting his ass kicked at school, is probably because hes going around preaching about his atheism and talking down to others who don't share his forcedfed beliefs.... kinda like his ignorant douchebag of a father. Go cook some meth and stimulate the economy. That'll be the culmination of your feeble existence, right there in a nutshell.





SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Wow, are you people really this dumb? I'll refer back that that same EXACT quoted post, but for a different reason this time...... I wasn't seriously asking him to PROVE anything. That was called sarcasm, and I said it in that very post. Lmao, when did you all start thinking that I'm trying to argue against atheism? Lmao WTF!


Here are a couple good posts that show your position.

So again, quit dodging.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Oct 28, 2013)

ricky1lung said:


> So again, quit dodging.


----------



## ricky1lung (Oct 28, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


>


Too funny, too bad it wasn't a pegasus though.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 28, 2013)

Lol, so YOU're trying to tell ME that I'm arguing against atheism? Lol, you all must all really love Tyler or something cause this is insane, lmao. And to beefbisquit.... I'm not arguing ANYTHING. Once again I don't have to prove ANYTHING. Think back very hard throughout the course of your life and you'll know that the law of attraction is very real. Lol, this isn't my religion, it's just another law at place in the universe that we live in. I truly couldn't care less what any of you think.


----------



## ricky1lung (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Lol, so YOU're trying to tell ME that I'm arguing against atheism? Lol, you all must all really love Tyler or something cause this is insane, lmao. And to beefbisquit.... I'm not arguing ANYTHING. Once again I don't have to prove ANYTHING. Think back very hard throughout the course of your life and you'll know that the law of attraction is very real. Lol, this isn't my religion, it's just another law at place in the universe that we live in. I truly couldn't care less what any of you think.


Oh alright, so what is your intention here with your contradictory posts? Just to argue I suppose because
you are yet to offer a valid response to questions asked that are clear and direct.

Nice try, no one is falling for your BS.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> I'm sorry, do you not understand English or something? I think I've answered both of your dumbass questions about 4 or 5 times. *You cannot prove something that cannot be proven*, and you're idiots for for repeatedly asking me too. I got an idea... since your all so good at posting quotes, why don't you post some of my so called "contradictory" posts, and I'll go to bed and continue to not give a shit what you think.... OK, Ready...GO!!!


LOL. I just find that statement funny. It's completely self evident. 

That's like saying "Eating poisonous things will poison you", or "red trucks are red trucks".

I think you're looking for, "It's not possible to prove a negative claim"....


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> I'm sorry, do you not understand English or something?


Maybe if he just uses the law of attraction and thinks reeeaaally hard about good thoughts it will make him happy so he can sleep. Because i don't think the law of attraction will work if you continue to not give a shit about what others think... because that's part of the law of attraction! 

Oh i know all about that law, it's like... the best law of all! All you gotta do is think good thoughts and good stuff happens! Although, i think name calling and belittling others in a forum isn't going to help your energy very much, got all this negative energy goin around isn't going to help the law at all man.

You gotta be positive if you want the law to work dude! Don't be mean or bad things will happen, you have been warned! Beware! BEWAAAAARE!!!


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 28, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Maybe if he just uses the law of attraction and thinks reeeaaally hard about good thoughts it will make him happy so he can sleep. Because i don't think the law of attraction will work if you continue to not give a shit about what others think... because that's part of the law of attraction!
> 
> Oh i know all about that law, it's like... the best law of all! All you gotta do is think good thoughts and good stuff happens! Although, i think name calling and belittling others in a forum isn't going to help your energy very much, got all this negative energy goin around isn't going to help the law at all man.
> 
> You gotta be positive if you want the law to work dude! Don't be mean or bad things will happen, you have been warned! Beware! BEWAAAAARE!!!


And don't walk under ladders, and don't cross black cats, and don't step on cracks "or you'll fall and break your back"..... Bobby, don't cha know....


----------



## sunni (Oct 28, 2013)

quit with the arguing and get back on subject


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 28, 2013)

There are universal laws that govern this whole deal of existing. Believers feel that those are a product of God. So, can God break his own laws?


----------



## PetFlora (Oct 28, 2013)

As you find your truth, whatever that might be, should it divert from accepted truth, it is 'natural' to lose friends. recovering alcohol and drug addicts go through this too

The part you highlighted in red is a false Jesus. So was the one who supposedly died on the cross for our sins. Everything we need is within. When we look outside, we give our personal power away. That's how they control us

The true Jesus said _Greater things than these shall ye do and Of myself alone I do nothing. It is the father WITHIN that doeth the works_

Jay Weidner did a recent youtube interview wherein he states what I have long believed is accurate regarding Jesus. Sorry, I don't have the link, but it is recent, and well worth listening to


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 28, 2013)

> Originally Posted by SeniorFrostyKush
> 
> How did I know you'd turn into a dick as soon as you heard something that goes against your bleak, apathetic views on existence. I don't gotta post any links or prove shit to your ignorant unenlightened ass.


I wasn't attempting to be a dick, I was being sincere. I wasn't asking you to post links to prove your position, only to support your position. Credible members that know this subforum know that it is protocol to include such links for positive claims, esp. if they're controversial. Every valid physical law is easily demonstrable, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. After your hate-filled post, I am confident that I am not...



> It would seem that you've heard this truth before. Why don't you prove to me that there aint a god..... hmm, thats what I fucking thought. And guess what, when YOU die, YOU might very well cease to exist, because that's what YOU choose to believe.


I don't think that one's beliefs affects what happens when we die, it seems like nature takes over at that point and the same process takes place for everyone...



> So by all means, go ahead and teach your son that shit, and the same fate might befall him too.


I've heard this feeble plea from many christians, "You may choose to reject jesus and go to hell, but don't subject your children to the same fate". It's never impressed me. Can you imagine how you'd react to this statement from others who substituted Zeus for jesus? Sounds nuts, no? 


> Oh and I'm guessing that the reason hes getting his ass kicked at school, is probably because hes going around preaching about his atheism and talking down to others who don't share his forcedfed beliefs.... kinda like his ignorant douchebag of a father. Go cook some meth, and stimulate the economy. That'll be the culmination of your feeble existence, right there in a nutshell.


Actually, my son has tried very hard not to speak about his atheism, knowing full well the potential trouble and intolerance he may face. The other children were unrelenting with their questions, and he only reluctantly answered them. How is one force fed non-belief? Also, he is a very talented, trained fighter. There is no one in his school, even older children, that is his physical match. He has never had his ass kicked by anyone other than myself. If you are an example of the benefits of The Secret, I would imagine most people would try to keep it away from their children...


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 28, 2013)

Trust me I'm not an example of the "secret" as you choose to call it. I've hardly mastered it, let alone do I claim to be an expert on it. Unlike what ridiculers want to point out and mock, the law of attraction is not an instantaneous process. In most cases, one doesn't simply close their eyes and manifest something into existence. I'm not really into philosophical discussions because people are going to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of any proof that you may show them, that is why I offered no links to back my statements up with. I do apologize for making that remark about your son, that was a bit of low blow and I regret posting that. And your right, every physical law is demonstrable, but I can't exactly demonstrate something to you through a computer screen. You can scoff all you want when I say this, but this particular law, (along with many others at play in our universe) can only be proven through the documentation of personal experiences. Since I can't prove anything to any of you by documenting my own or any one else's personal experiences, how can you expect me to prove this? There's not exactly a website or anything out there, where I can go and collect personal experiences on the subject and post them here as proof. You wouldn't believe them to be credible anyway. Anyhow that's the only thing that I have left to say on the subject. Like I said before, I'm not into discussing the philosophical, and I dare not say anything further, considering the fact that sunni has now joined the bandwagon, and will just erase my posts, claiming them to be "_argumentative and off topic."_


----------



## MojoRison (Oct 28, 2013)

In my family you were given a choice, which to some was grounds enough to start a very heated, often violent debate. To this day there are those who believe and those who do not, this argument has been raging for centuries {I mean that literally, as it was my ancestor who translated the KJB}<not hyperbole>....and yet we are still family.


----------



## ElfoodStampo (Oct 28, 2013)

[video=youtube;TLrt6mGR8To]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLrt6mGR8To&amp;feature=c4-overview-vl&amp;list=PLNhTos49Oq4LboD3bb0S2SFJwi2xY9Tjb[/video]


----------



## ElfoodStampo (Oct 28, 2013)

[video=youtube;d9fC3flXY5g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9fC3flXY5g&amp;feature=c4-overview-vl&amp;list=PLNhTos49Oq4LboD3bb0S2SFJwi2xY9Tjb[/video]


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Oct 28, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> That's just it, anything is possible _within the laws of physics_. We can't simply wish really, really hard and the things we desire pop into existence,* we can't read people's exact thoughts* or move things with our minds


.......lol


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 28, 2013)

Singularity has nothing behind it











lol


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 28, 2013)

ElfoodStampo said:


> [video=youtube;d9fC3flXY5g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9fC3flXY5g&amp;feature=c4-overview-vl&amp;list=PLNhTos49Oq4LboD3bb0S2SFJwi2xY9Tjb[/video]


This video is truly the most poignant and accurate explanation of our estistance that I've ever seen. "Energy can neither be created or destroyed." That simple explanation of energy, is tant amount to proof, that we are all eternal. No, we very well may not end up at the pearly gates when we die, but our energy will none the less, remain in existence. That fact is scientifically irrefutable.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 28, 2013)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> .......lol


Damn, sorry Chief. I meant no one but your buddy...


----------



## schuylaar (Oct 28, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Damn, sorry Chief. I meant no one but your buddy...


love your avi, ty..


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 28, 2013)

schuylaar said:


> love your avi, ty..


Thanks. Just a little homage, I'm still mourning Breaking Bad. I'm gonna be a methylamine barrel for Halloween...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> This video is truly the most poignant and accurate explanation of our estistance that I could ever have hoped to witness. "Energy can neither be created or destroyed." That simple explanation of energy, is tant amount to proof, that we are all eternal. No, we very well may not end up at the pearly gates when we die, but our energy will none the less, remain in existence. That fact is scientifically irrefutable.


You based your entire argument on a theory that has, admittedly, never been&#65279; proven (about the singularity)


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 28, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> This video is truly the most poignant and accurate explanation of our estistance that I could ever have hoped to witness. "Energy can neither be created or destroyed." That simple explanation of energy, is tant amount to proof, that we are all eternal. No, we very well may not end up at the pearly gates when we die, but our energy will none the less, remain in existence. That fact is scientifically irrefutable.


This is true. The matter of which our bodies consist has been around since the first stars exploded to make the heavier elements, and will be around long after our bodies perish. Unfortunately, are unique consciousness, our sense of I-ness, by all indications is lost upon our physical death. It can be comforting to know that the energy/matter we borrow while we exist as individuals will go on to take other forms...


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 29, 2013)

Well that _is_ your opinion my friend. My opinion is that consciousness and physicality are merely two different types of energy that exist as part of the same 1 singularity, and that death is just a permanent separation of the two. Let us once again, agree to disagree. (in a friendly manner this time.)


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Well that _is_ your opinion my friend. My opinion is that consciousness and physicality are merely two separate parts of the same 1 singularity, and that death is just a permanent separation of the two. Let us once again agree to disagree. (in a friendly manner this time.)


Sounds good. I'm just pointing out to other members that there is no absolutely no empirical evidence to support your positive claim...


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 29, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Sounds good. I'm just pointing out to other members that there is no absolutely no empirical evidence to support your positive claim...


Nor is there for yours, but does that make either of us wrong? These are questions that we as human beings are not yet able to answer by way of current technology. I've known since I first posted on this thread, that there is nothing that any of us can do to prove our beliefs to one another. All I'm trying to do is open up peoples minds a little bit. I've always found it baffling that most of us believe that we human beings have discovered all that there is to discover, and know all that there is to know about our universe. Common sense however, will tell you that such notions are absurd. We've only had access to sophisticated technology for less than a century. Any credible scientist will tell you there are countless things in our universe that we have absolutely no factual knowledge on. Only theories. So you have to ask yourself this.... if there are things in our universe that are left to be discovered and understood, then why it is so impossible to believe that there may be laws of physics that are yet to be discovered and understood?


----------



## sunni (Oct 29, 2013)

Please stick to OPs original topic thanks


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 29, 2013)

http://www.amazon.com/Mom-Dad-Im-Atheist-Non-believer/dp/1908675047

This essential guide to coming-out as a non-believer has been written to make it easier for atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and non-believers of all ages and backgrounds to be open about their non-religiosity while minimizing the negative interactions in familial, social, and professional circles.

As a survival guide for non-believers who wish to come out, this book provides advice and resources for those interested in publically rejecting religious dogma as well as real stories from non-believers who have experienced coming-out to less-than-supportive family or friends.

Whether you're new to disbelief and looking for the cleanest possible break from your former faith or you're a lifelong atheist who wants to establish a sense of community with like-minded people, this guide provides useful resources including: tips for handling potential conflicts with believers, the author's answers to some of the most frequently asked questions on behalf of believers, and numerous references to support groups, services, and advocacy organizations dedicated to non-theists.

From dealing with grief from a secular perspective to handling potential clashes in religious worldviews between significant others, this book offers multiple perspectives from non-religious individuals who have generously shared their experiences to help those atheists who may find themselves in similar situations.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/10/exclusive-excerpt-david-g-mcafees-the-guide-to-coming-out-as-a-non-believer/

Confrontation is a natural part of any interaction involving a member of a family dissenting from the others, especially when it comes to the topic of religion or politics. But, on a more fundamental level, confrontation results from these religious discussions for one simple reason: _Youre telling them that their most fundamental beliefs are wrong._ 

Even if you arent intending to set out persuading people to give up their religions, even if you couldnt care less what other people believe, when you say, I dont believe in god(s), it will always mean that, if they do, you believe they are _wrong_. This fact is one aspect that separates religious identification with other disagreements and discussions common within families. And it is about a topic that some people hold closer than all else  religion. In fact, that is one of the distinguishing features that separates coming out as an atheist and coming out in the traditional sense as within the LGBT community. It is not as if saying, Im gay, inherently means, Straight people are _wrong_ to be straight.

Further: 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/10/exclusive-excerpt-david-g-mcafees-the-guide-to-coming-out-as-a-non-believer/


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 29, 2013)

Lol what did I tell ya. As soon as I respond to Tyler.... here comes sunni. Since when is straying "off topic" going against forum regulations? Lol, there's been other people posting "off topic", including "off topic" videos for almost half the thread. Besides the original poster hasn't even said anything since about post 5. Discussions evolve and go off topic all the time and yet I've never seen a mod repeatedly instructing people (*me) to stay on topic. Yes your right, the word "atheist" hadn't been uttered in a few posts, but I think that the subject of existence is pretty much "on topic" with atheism don't you?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 29, 2013)

MojoRison said:


> In my family you were given a choice, which to some was grounds enough to start a very heated, often violent debate.


This explains my parents beliefs. They told me I'm my own person, so I can have my own beliefs.. then they told me I shouldn't deny god. Then told me it's ok to question it. Contradictory, I know. But they're my parents, what can I do besides shut my mouth? haha

So an update. Everything is fine. The same day I told my parents I was atheist, my aunt, who I hadn't seen in a while, was visiting. She was one of those high and mighty christians. The ones who will pray for YOUR "better good" (which means you'll be a better person if you believe). Me and her got into a heated debate and I asked her several questions that she did not like (and kept raising her preaching voice at me). Then she said the bible is from god, which I replied "jesus must work at a bible making factory then". She stood up and left, told me she'd pray for me, then stormed out grabbing her son behind her). It was a little awkward sitting there with my parents still at the table and just finding out I was atheist, after I released the thoughts I was holding in for years now. But the next day, we had a good laugh over how crazy my aunt is.. Things are better now, thank you guys! And to the members who repped me telling me they'd pray for me, thanks, but no thanks. I appreciate it if you put in thoughts for me hoping I can find peace.. but if you think less of me as a person because I don't believe in your god, just keep your prayers to yourself. I'm not god, so I don't need to hear them


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> This video is truly the most poignant and accurate explanation of our estistance that I've ever seen. "Energy can neither be created or destroyed." That simple explanation of energy, is tant amount to proof, that we are all eternal. No, we very well may not end up at the pearly gates when we die, but our energy will none the less, remain in existence. That fact is scientifically irrefutable.


the law "energy can neither be created or destroyed" doesn't mean we go to a place that has no proof to back up it's existence. In simple terms, it just means we die and our energy can easily provide a bears ability to shit in the woods (after eating the rabbit who ate the grass that got it's nutes from our decaying bodies). .. right?


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 29, 2013)

That's pretty cool bro. I'm glad your parents didn't flip out on you like your aunt did. I know exactly what that shit is like, all my aunt's are exactly the same way and say all the same mindless shit. Now that you got all that off your chest, you can build a slightly new, but even more rewarding relationship with your parents. I'm sure the topic will probably come up again, and they'll probably try and do some subtle, or maybe not so subtle things to get you to reconsider, but eventually they'll come to terms (if they haven't already.)


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Oct 29, 2013)

I say believe in whatever you believe is the truth. If you don't believe there is a god then why should you be pressured into believing whats not true to you?

Believe in facts if they truly are facts. Believe in the most important facts or truth. You can obviously believe in things that are not facts or truth but you will be believing a lie. Believe in whatever you want but it will only be to your advantage if you believe in factual truth and you will be more right then wrong. And don't we all want to be right about the most important things in life?

Personally, I believe there might be a God because of creation. The creation, in My opinion, needs a Creator. I hope there is a God but I have never been able to prove Gods existence. But as far as most of the stories in the Bible go, I believe most of the stories in the Bible are myth and fairy tales to "entertain" the believer. 

Believe in whatever you want but try and just believe factual truth, whatever that might be. 

~PEACE~


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 29, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> the law "energy can neither be created or destroyed" doesn't mean we go to a place that has no proof to back up it's existence. In simple terms, it just means we die and our energy can easily provide a bears ability to shit in the woods (after eating the rabbit who ate the grass that got it's nutes from our decaying bodies). .. right?


Well, although that is an opinion and not necessarily a fact, it is definitely possible. However, I truly don't believe that to be the case. In my opinion, there's more and more science emerging each and every year to back up the notion that our consciousness is a separate entity from our physical bodies, and that the energy that _is_ our consciousness, carries on after our physical death. This belief has nothing to do with religion, but everything to due do with how you interpret the scientific facts at hand.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 29, 2013)

since I made this thread and don't feel like making another.. I wanna vent about how I hate that some religious people feel like you have something against _their_ god simply because you don't believe. I have nothing against the tooth fairy either. 

When I was realizing I didn't believe in the bible or god, I had a really tough time accepting my own thoughts (I'm sure some of the "original" ssp members remember). I hated myself at one point because I couldn't believe. I honestly mean I hated myself. So I really dislike it when people tell me to stop "rejecting" god, open my heart, and pray". I tried all of those. I really did as best as I could. But my own logic lead me the other way as much as I wanted to keep the idea of a happy afterlife. It wasn't easy, so I hate how they tell me it's easy to do. Sure it is, if you have "belief like a child" (which is what my aunt told me to have) I'm not rejecting "god's love", just the idea of him. I couldn't believe any of it no matter how hard I tried.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 29, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Personally, I believe there might be a God because of creation. The creation, in My opinion, needs a Creator. I hope there is a God but I have never been able to prove Gods existence. But as far as most of the stories in the Bible go, I believe most of the stories in the Bible are myth and fairy tales to "entertain" the believer.
> 
> ~PEACE~


I share your beliefs wholeheartedly in regards the above quote. But, I have to ask.... when speaking in regards to the philosophical, how does a person determine what is truly fact, and what isn't?


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> I share your beliefs wholeheartedly in regards the above quote. But, I have to ask.... when speaking in regards to the philosophical, how does a person determine what is truly fact and what isn't?


Some things are totally subjective and its not necessarily right or wrong because its a matter of opinion or whatever. One person might believe one way and another person might believe another way on something subjective and it doesn't matter. 

Facts are things that really happened or can happen. Opinions are totally subjective and they don't matter as much as facts. 

I don't know how to determine fact from fiction sometimes because the fiction might be proposed as fact. But try and go with what has the most evidence that makes sense to your scientific brain. 

Try and just learn the most important facts because there are trillions of facts that don't matter at all. 

I'm not expert on anything to be honest, I'm just going to give you My humble opinion like I always do. 

~PEACE~


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Nor is there for yours, but does that make either of us wrong?


Well, what I stated about us being made from star stuff, and what happens to our physical bodies upon our death is not opinion, but scientific fact. I then stated that everything we can witness about our unique consciousness is lost along with our decomposing bodies, this also is not opinion, but scientific fact. Anything posited past these facts is mere speculation at this point; sure, there could be more to it that we have yet to discover, but there is no empirical evidence for it at this point...



> These are questions that we as human beings are not yet able to answer by way of current technology. I've known since I first posted on this thread, that there is nothing that any of us can do to prove our beliefs to one another.


On this subforum, I've seen people change their beliefs when sufficient evidence is presented to the contrary (in the form of links to scientific, peer reviewed data). My own beliefs have changed several times over the last few years as a direct result of other members here showing me where my beliefs were erroneous, and I've witnessed other members go through the same process...



> All I'm trying to do is open up peoples minds a little bit. I've always found it baffling that most of us believe that we human beings have discovered all that there is to discover, and know all that there is to know about our universe. Common sense however, will tell you that such notions are absurd. We've only had access to sophisticated technology for less than a century. Any credible scientist will tell you there are countless things in our universe that we have absolutely no factual knowledge on. Only theories. So you have to ask yourself this.... if there are things in our universe that are left to be discovered and understood, then why it is so impossible to believe that there may be laws of physics that are yet to be discovered and understood?


I cannot recall one time where anyone has stated that humanity has discovered all there is about the cosmos, so your experience is very different than my own. On the contrary, most people I've run across believe we are just getting started in our quest of discovery. There very well be other physical laws we've yet to discover, my point is there is no evidence for it at this point, so anything said about them is mere speculation. One thing I'd like to address is the word theory. You are using the term as a layman, and is not the way we use it in science. Theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge and has amazing predictive power, it is made up of many facts and laws, is painstakingly constructed and is under constant barrage by other scientists trying to knock it down. The more assault it withstands, the more credible it becomes. It is not merely a guess on a whim. If you truly would like to open people's minds and claim that there is science to support your position, you need to start posting links to this data so other can take a look for themselves. It also may help to come familiarize yourself with scientific terms such as theory, and perhaps become familiar with logical fallacies as most members here are - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 29, 2013)

Gee whiz, who woulda guessed that Tyler would once again come off like a complete asshole.... I never would have seen it coming.... You're exactly the same as an elitist Christian, homie. Zero difference.


tyler.durden said:


> Well, what I stated about us being made from star stuff, and what happens to our physical bodies upon our death is not opinion, but scientific fact.


 True, I've never refuted that....


> I then stated that everything we can witness about our unique consciousness is lost along with our decomposing bodies, this also is not opinion, but scientific fact.


 Lmfao! Explain to me how that's scientific fact..... Those would be your own atheist beliefs, not scientific fact.


> Anything posited past these facts is mere speculation at this point; sure, there could be more to it that we have yet to discover, but there is no *empirical* evidence for it at this point...


 For someone so familiar with scientific terms, it's sure funny how you continue to use these said terms in the wrong diction. I don't think that "empirical" was the word that you were looking for smartass. Go ahead, pull up websters and familiarize yourself with it's definition....


> I've seen people change their beliefs when sufficient evidence is presented to the contrary (in the form of links to scientific, peer reviewed data). My own beliefs have changed several times over the last few years as a direct result of other members here showing me where my beliefs were erroneous, and I've witnessed other members go through the same process...


 You very well may have.... but I think it's far more likely that this statement was just your attempt to throw an underhanded jab my way......


> I cannot recall one time where anyone has stated that humanity has discovered all there is about the cosmos, so your experience is very different than my own.


 Obviously


> There very well be other physical laws we've yet to discover, my point is there is no evidence for it at this point, so anything said about them is mere speculation.


 The same can be said for each and every one of your unproven beliefs....


> I'd like to address is the word theory. You are using the term as a layman, and is not the way we use it in science. Theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge and has amazing predictive power, it is made up of many facts and laws, is painstakingly constructed and is under constant barrage by other scientists trying to knock it down. The more assault it withstands, the more credible it becomes. It is not merely a guess on a whim.


 Damn, don't you just hate all of us laymen..... Note to Self: substitute the word "theory", for the more scientifically accurate term "speculation". Do I get an A on my test now Professor Durden? Oh and BTW, I think that would be your own conceptualized definition of the word "theory". Again refer to websters....


> If you truly would like to open people's minds and claim that there is science to support your position, you need to start posting links to this data so other can take a look for themselves.


 I'll say this once more.... There's no way in hell that I'd bother to waste my time, collecting and posting my own, or anyone else's personal experiences for you and your little group to mock. They would not be taken as credible, and due to your pompous nature, you would immediately post another smartass comment saying how personal experiences are not "empirical" (lol) scientific fact. I'm not stupid enough to think that I could get a room full of atheists to BELIEVE in anything. Lol, look, an oxymoron: atheist/belief.....


> perhaps become familiar with logical fallacies.


 Lmao! You wouldn't know logic or truth if they hit you square between the eyes.... and you can be rest assured that someday they will. This is the end of this little philosophical pissing contest for me. Have a nice life Tyler. Better enjoy it while it lasts, right? Lmao! Two closing words: Spiritual Ineptitude.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Gee whiz, who woulda guessed that Tyler would once again come off like a complete asshole.... I never would have seen it coming.... You're exactly the same as an elitist Christian, homie. Zero difference.


Except his beliefs have demonstrable evidence. Not just 'it's written in a book'.



> Lmfao! Explain to me how that's scientific fact..... Those would be your own atheist beliefs, not scientific fact.


We know what happens to people who have severe brain damage. We have seen and tested countless psychological conditions that affect peoples personalities, memories, etc., etc., ad nauseum. We know not only where memories and personality is stored in the brain, but how to affect them. 

Dr.'s are not affecting the 'soul'.



> For someone so familiar with scientific terms, it's sure funny how you continue to use these said terms in the wrong diction. I don't think that "empirical" was the word that you were looking for smartass. Go ahead, pull up websters and familiarize yourself with it's definition....


Foot in mouth.

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

"*Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[SUP][1][/SUP] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[SUP][2][/SUP] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.[SUP][2]"[/SUP]*



> You very well may have.... but I think it's far more likely that this statement was just your attempt to throw an underhanded jab my way......


Sorry you see it that way, T.D. is a really nice guy.



> Obviously The same can be said for each and every one of your unproven beliefs....


Belief is only justified when the burden of proof is filled. The default position is always non-belief. You wouldn't believe in a magical tea pot orbiting saturn just because someone told you it existed, would you? You would want to see evidence that supported its existence, right? 



> Damn, don't you just hate all of us laymen..... Note to Self: substitute the word "theory", for the more scientifically accurate term "speculation". Do I get an A on my test now Professor Durden? Oh and BTW, I think that would be your own conceptualized definition of the word "theory". Again refer to websters....


Foot in mouth #2.

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

"*A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4]"[/SUP]*



> I'll say this once more.... There's no way in hell that I'd bother to waste my time, collecting and posting my own, or anyone else's personal experiences for you and your little group to mock. They would not be taken as credible, and due to your pompous nature, you would immediately post another smartass comment saying how personal experiences are not "empirical" (lol) scientific fact. I'm not stupid enough to think that I could get a room full of atheists to BELIEVE in anything. Lol, look, an oxymoron: atheist/belief.....


Atheists believe all kinds of things, we just need proof first. We don't believe on faith, if you do that's cool; but don't make your case about your beliefs and get pissed when people poke holes in it. 




> Lmao! You wouldn't know logic or truth if they hit you square between the eyes.... and you can be rest assured that someday they will. This is the end of this little philosophical pissing contest for me. Have a nice life Tyler. Better enjoy it while it lasts, right? Lmao! Two closing words: Spiritual Ineptitude.


Damn, that barely got out of the opening round....


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Gee whiz, who woulda guessed that Tyler would once again come off like a complete asshole.... I never would have seen it coming....


Damn, I was really attempting to be polite and cordial, too...



> You're exactly the same as an elitist Christian, homie. Zero difference.


Except for the jesus thing. Also, all of the science and logic to support my views...




> True, I've never refuted that.... Lmfao! Explain to me how that's scientific fact..... Those would be your own atheist beliefs, not scientific fact.


When our bodies die, all circulation and electrical energy production ceases. Our mind/consciousness emerges from our brains in the form of electrical neuronal firing and neurotransmitter activity, and these cease when we die. Our bodies then decompose into dust, and there is no sign of any activity at all. That's why I stated that by all indications, our consciousness/I-ness ceases to exist. This is what science observes, anything past this view is speculation or faith...



> For someone so familiar with scientific terms, it's sure funny how you continue to use these said terms in the wrong diction. I don't think that "empirical" was the word that you were looking for smartass. Go ahead, pull up websters and familiarize yourself with it's definition....


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

3* :* capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <_empirical_ laws> 





> You very well may have.... but I think it's far more likely that this statement was just your attempt to throw an underhanded jab my way......


I'm sure other members could verify my statements, as they were here and witnessed this process in myself and others...



> Obviously The same can be said for each and every one of your unproven beliefs....


Which beliefs are those?


> Damn, don't you just hate all of us laymen.....


Not at all. Ignorance is easily forgiven and rectified, willful ignorance to protect cherished, unfounded beliefs are a different matter...



> Note to Self: substitute the word "theory", for the more scientifically accurate term "speculation". Do I get an A on my test now Professor Durdan? Oh and BTW, I think that would be your own conceptualized definition of the word theory. Again refer to websters...


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
6
*a :* a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave _theory_ of light> 


_c_ *:* a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <_theory_ of equations>



> I'll say this once more.... There's no way in hell that I'd bother to waste my time, collecting and posting my own, or anyone else's personal experiences for you and your little group to mock. They would not be taken as credible, and due to your pompous nature, you would immediately post another smartass comment, saying how personal experiences are not "empirical" (lol) scientific fact.


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

This is a good example of why you may want to familiarize yourself with logical fallacies. They will help you with your critical thinking process and cognitive abilities...


> I'm not stupid enough to think that I could get a room full of atheists to BELIEVE in anything. Lol, look, an oxymoron: atheist/belief.....


Atheism tells you only one thing about a person, the lack of belief in deities. It doesn't tell you what one _does_ believe...


> Lmao! you wouldn't know logic or truth if it hit you square between the eyes.... and you can be rest assured that someday it will.


Well, at least I'm trying...



> This is the end of this little philosophical pissing contest for me. Have a nice life Tyler. Better enjoy it while it lasts, right? Lmao!


You didn't fair very well this time, but something tells me you'll be back. There is lots to learn!



> Two closing words: Spiritual Ineptitude.


Not really interested...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 29, 2013)

Sorry for butting in T.D., I just couldn't help myself.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Gee whiz, who woulda guessed that Tyler would once again come off like a complete asshole.... I never would have seen it coming.... You're exactly the same as an elitist Christian, homie. Zero difference. True, I've never refuted that.... Lmfao! Explain to me how that's scientific fact..... Those would be your own atheist beliefs, not scientific fact. For someone so familiar with scientific terms, it's sure funny how you continue to use these said terms in the wrong diction. I don't think that "empirical" was the word that you were looking for smartass. Go ahead, pull up websters and familiarize yourself with it's definition.... You very well may have.... but I think it's far more likely that this statement was just your attempt to throw an underhanded jab my way...... Obviously The same can be said for each and every one of your unproven beliefs.... Damn, don't you just hate all of us laymen..... Note to Self: substitute the word "theory", for the more scientifically accurate term "speculation". Do I get an A on my test now Professor Durden? Oh and BTW, I think that would be your own conceptualized definition of the word "theory". Again refer to websters.... I'll say this once more.... There's no way in hell that I'd bother to waste my time, collecting and posting my own, or anyone else's personal experiences for you and your little group to mock. They would not be taken as credible, and due to your pompous nature, you would immediately post another smartass comment saying how personal experiences are not "empirical" (lol) scientific fact. I'm not stupid enough to think that I could get a room full of atheists to BELIEVE in anything. Lol, look, an oxymoron: atheist/belief..... Lmao! You wouldn't know logic or truth if they hit you square between the eyes.... and you can be rest assured that someday they will. This is the end of this little philosophical pissing contest for me. Have a nice life Tyler. Better enjoy it while it lasts, right? Lmao! Two closing words: Spiritual Ineptitude.


[youtube]uq-v1TTUyhM[/youtube]


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 29, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Sorry for butting in T.D., I just couldn't help myself.


I always enjoy the products of that big, beautiful brain of yours


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Oct 29, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Except his beliefs have demonstrable evidence. Not just 'it's written in a book'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You didn't poke holes in anything homie, your pompous ass just thinks you did and that's the funny part. Lol, all you sure have a talent for wording things in such a way, as to make it seem like you've made some sort of positive affirmation, when in reality, you've affirmed absolutely nothing at all. Lmao, things don't just become facts because you decide that their facts. Yup its over in round 1. I have no doubt that a close minded atheist could argue their beliefs/non beliefs, for days at a time, because that's what you guys live for. You all think that your the pinnacle of human intelligence and its fucking hilarious. I on the other hand have better things to do. Ok now you can go ahead and type out another misleading affirmative post, talking as if you've somehow gained the upper hand by something that you've said. Which hasn't happened yet BTW. Have a great life everybody. Some day in the future, you'll think back to this discussion and go, "holy shit, he was actually right." I on the other hand will forget about this all by tomorrow and never have a reason to remember any of you ever again. Don't fret my boy, your soul is eternal whether you choose to believe it or not. It's a beautiful thing.


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Oct 29, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> I always enjoy the products of that big, beautiful brain of yours


Great, a circle jerk.

Anyways, its about time you quoted Me in your signature but I would rather you qoute the following.

I prophesy that there will be cities everywhere possible, like UNDERGROUND CITIES, UNDERWATER CITIES, UNDER THE OCEAN FLOOR CITIES, FLOATING CITIES, SKY SCRAPER CITIES AND CITIES ON OTHER PLANETS.

Quote something like that Tyler instead of something that undermines Me. Thanks friend.

PEACE


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 29, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Great, a circle jerk.


Ah, it's the head of the children's table chiming in. Don't hate, it's not very christ-like. And no, you cannot join in...



> Anyways, its about time you quoted Me in your signature but I would rather you qoute the following.
> 
> I prophesy that there will be cities everywhere possible, like UNDERGROUND CITIES, UNDERWATER CITIES, UNDER THE OCEAN FLOOR CITIES, FLOATING CITIES, SKY SCRAPER CITIES AND CITIES ON OTHER PLANETS.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... Nah, I feel that the quote in my signature is more indicative of what you truly represent. Thanks for the suggestion, though...


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> You didn't poke holes in anything homie, your pompous ass just thinks you did and that's the funny part. Lol, all you sure have a talent for wording things in such a way, as to make it seem like you've made some sort of positive affirmation, when in reality, you've affirmed absolutely nothing at all. Lmao, things don't just become facts because you decide that their facts. Yup its over in round 1. I have no doubt that a close minded atheist could argue their beliefs/non beliefs, for days at a time, because that's what you guys live for. You all think that your the pinnacle of human intelligence and its fucking hilarious. I on the other hand have better things to do. Ok now you can go ahead and type out another misleading affirmative post, talking as if you've somehow gained the upper hand by something that you've said. Which hasn't happened yet BTW. Have a great life everybody. Some day in the future, you'll think back to this discussion and go, "holy shit, he was actually right." I on the other hand will forget about this all by tomorrow and never have a reason to remember any of you ever again. Don't fret my boy, your soul is eternal whether you choose to believe it or not. It's a beautiful thing.


I had a feeling you'd be back...


----------



## joe macclennan (Oct 29, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> I prophesy that there will be cities everywhere possible, like UNDERGROUND CITIES, UNDERWATER CITIES, UNDER THE OCEAN FLOOR CITIES, FLOATING CITIES, SKY SCRAPER CITIES AND CITIES ON OTHER PLANETS.



fin is that you?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 29, 2013)

I think it's a question of subtlety. Science can see the discreet structures of life's mechanics. Being spiritually inclined is a different kind of recognition of structure.







The reason I hold to belief of something greater than me is that with each thought toward 'that' I end up bringing myself to a place I haven't been before.

There are 17 ways to do the same thing. JC and the Sunshine...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> You didn't poke holes in anything homie, your pompous ass just thinks you did and that's the funny part. Lol, all you sure have a talent for wording things in such a way, as to make it seem like you've made some sort of positive affirmation, when in reality, you've affirmed absolutely nothing at all. Lmao, things don't just become facts because you decide that their facts. Yup its over in round 1. I have no doubt that a close minded atheist could argue their beliefs/non beliefs, for days at a time, because that's what you guys live for. You all think that your the pinnacle of human intelligence and its fucking hilarious. I on the other hand have better things to do. Ok now you can go ahead and type out another misleading affirmative post, talking as if you've somehow gained the upper hand by something that you've said. Which hasn't happened yet BTW. Have a great life everybody. Some day in the future, you'll think back to this discussion and go, "holy shit, he was actually right." I on the other hand will forget about this all by tomorrow and never have a reason to remember any of you ever again. Don't fret my boy, your soul is eternal whether you choose to believe it or not. It's a beautiful thing.


We affirmed you don't know what empirical evidence or a scientific theory is. 

Just pick up your hockey net and go home.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 29, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> You didn't poke holes in anything homie, your pompous ass just thinks you did and that's the funny part. Lol, all you sure have a talent for wording things in such a way, as to make it seem like you've made some sort of positive affirmation, when in reality, you've affirmed absolutely nothing at all. Lmao, things don't just become facts because you decide that their facts. Yup its over in round 1. I have no doubt that a close minded atheist could argue their beliefs/non beliefs, for days at a time, because that's what you guys live for. You all think that your the pinnacle of human intelligence and its fucking hilarious. I on the other hand have better things to do. Ok now you can go ahead and type out another misleading affirmative post, talking as if you've somehow gained the upper hand by something that you've said. Which hasn't happened yet BTW. Have a great life everybody. Some day in the future, you'll think back to this discussion and go, "holy shit, he was actually right." I on the other hand will forget about this all by tomorrow and never have a reason to remember any of you ever again. Don't fret my boy, your soul is eternal whether you choose to believe it or not. It's a beautiful thing.


[youtube]z99iVXJ8OtA[/youtube]


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Oct 29, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> I think it's a question of subtlety. Science can see the discreet structures of life's mechanics. Being spiritually inclined is a different kind of recognition of structure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you preachin the JC? I thought you were different, eye... Lol Im kidding. I'll take me some sunshine though.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Oct 29, 2013)

There are two kinds of people. Those who think they know, and those who know they don't.

I know that whatever belief i have, there always exists the possibility of me being wrong about it. Just as there are many people like that on this sub forum. 

The second type, the people who think they know...lol. Every time you ask them; Well, hey dude, please explain to me, just how DO you know? 

Their response is either; Fuck you, who are you to ask me that question you arrogant little bitch asshole douche bag! How dare you make me question what i believe! Or the other; You just wouldn't understand, you aren't ready yet, you aren't me, you haven't had the experiences i have had.

Either way, you cannot convince anyone but yourself, and even if you DO convince yourself... that is EXACTLY what you are doing. Trying to convince yourself of something that you know in the depths of your soul that even the slightest most miniscule possibility that you might be wrong... exists. 

The only way to refute a question about an unsound unscientific belief... is to pretty much say; "Fuck off, don't talk to me."

(Strictly speaking of metaphysical/theological beliefs; ideas that hold no scientific proof of being true)


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Oct 29, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> There are two kinds of people. Those who think they know, and those who know they don't.
> 
> I know that whatever belief i have, there always exists the possibility of me being wrong about it. Just as there are many people like that on this sub forum.
> 
> ...


... Theres still something in yourself that you hold dearly as a concrete fact but at its core its still a soft, mushy, gushy buhleevy. Chip at that rock and humble yourself .


----------



## DrDank (Oct 29, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I've mentioned not really believing in god before, but today I mentioned how I'm an atheist to my parents while talking about religion. I didn't want to lie about a belief in god, so I let them know. My dad shared his religious views. He told me not to worry too much, but I'm not supposed to deny god. He also said nobody knows and that he questions it too. BUT I'm still not supposed to deny god. My mom was just very disappointed. Kept saying it was her FAULT (which means she finds a fault in me too) because she didn't take me to church as a kid. She said she should have done better. Not many people can get to me, but that one hurt. I feel like shit right now honestly. Starting to think I may end up in hell and eat my words. I wouldn't consider this hatred as I've experienced true hate due to my lack of belief, but this really hit me in a bad way. Just wondering if anybody else has gone through something like this either from family or a close friend. I honestly don't care if I offend a strangers beliefs, but when my own mom is truly disappointed in me, well it sucks!


Being religious and being a decent human are two completely different things. Actions are important; not beliefs. Compassion is not religiously based. It's human.

And who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks anyways? People who believe in aliens are mocked by media all the time, but the belief in an invisible, omnipotent, "loving," untangle, unrecordable "spirit" that is essentially master and commander of all the universe and time, are totally sane people?? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? 

Believe in whatever magic, chaos, or organized religion that you want. But PLEASE don't force your beliefs on others (that's fascism.) 

No god is my master. (I have enough bills 'n shit to worry about already.)


----------



## joe macclennan (Oct 29, 2013)

DrDank said:


> Being religious and being a decent human are two completely different things. Actions are important; not beliefs. Compassion is not religiously based. It's human.
> 
> And who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks anyways? People who believe in aliens are mocked by media all the time, but the belief in an invisible, omnipotent, "loving," untangle, unrecordable "spirit" that is essentially master and commander of all the universe and time, are totally sane people?? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
> 
> ...


----------



## Balzac89 (Oct 30, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Hep! Sorry you had to go through that, but your immediate family is the most challenging when it comes to your atheism. I went through it with them when I was like 16, so we got it out of the way early. When my son was born, it was more difficult: I instructed them not to bring instill any magical thinking in him; no Santa, magic, Disney, god or jesus. They went fucking nuts, crying, yelling, the whole nine yards. But, they got used to it. Now, my kid is having a hell of a time in school trying to fit in to a social group. He's great looking, smart, funny and talented, but ever since they found out he was an atheist a couple years ago, they pick on him and exclude him from things. His school is 95% WASP kids, and the rest are jews. They're are only three atheists in his school. I do feel guilty from time to time having raised my son atheist in light of the trouble he's having, but I think it's better and healthier in the long run. I reassure him that when he hits HS soon, he will meet a lot more like minded people there. But BB's right, time will smooth this over. Glad you're feeling better, keep your chin up, my friend...


Aren't you just indoctrinating him with your beliefs? How is that any different from organized religion? 

I am not religious in any sense.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 30, 2013)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Are you preachin the JC? I thought you were different, eye... Lol Im kidding. I'll take me some sunshine though.


Hehe. What's up chief? Good to see you're still strutin'


----------



## MojoRison (Oct 30, 2013)

My brain strips it's gears, reality shifts constantly and I'm phasing in and out. What once was, is no longer. Just as I felt it within my grasp the smoke plumes differently presenting variations, wicked and bent, my brain straightens multiple angles while I'm left wandering the maze of uncertainty...death holds the key.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 30, 2013)

Balzac89 said:


> Aren't you just indoctrinating him with your beliefs? How is that any different from organized religion?
> 
> I am not religious in any sense.


Is it indoctrination to teach kids that water is H2O? 

Or that electricity is the flow of electrons?


I would think not.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 30, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Great, a circle jerk.
> 
> Anyways, its about time you quoted Me in your signature but I would rather you qoute the following.
> 
> ...


I "prophesy" that you will shut the fuck up.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 30, 2013)

Maybe would could define belief?

Singularity - nothing before it.

Creation - something before it.


Each has its own 'value'. In any case, both share a common, supernatural bond


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 30, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> Maybe would could define belief?
> 
> Singularity - nothing before it.
> 
> ...


Define 'nothing'. Void of space, or no matter?


If there's a singularity, what caused the singularity? If there was 'nothing' before it, how did it come to be? It seems like you're falling back on a creator argument, just re-phrasing it. Kind of like ID isn't really creationism...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 30, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Define 'nothing'. Void of space, or no matter?
> 
> 
> If there's a singularity, what caused the singularity? If there was 'nothing' before it, how did it come to be? It seems like you're falling back on a creator argument, just re-phrasing it. Kind of like ID isn't really creationism...


Sorry, I don't see what you mean. Was there something before the big bang?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 30, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> Sorry, I don't see what you mean. Was there something before the big bang?


Probably 'something'. No way to tell for sure.

I think it's more likely the universe is infinite, and the big crunch/bang is the more likely answer. This actually is a 'belief' of mine, not a fact or scientifically based reasoning.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 30, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Probably 'something'. Yes.
> 
> We just have no idea what.


Ah, cool. I was under the impression that the idea was that it was nothingness prior to its somethingness - lol


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 30, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> Ah, cool. I was under the impression that the idea was that it was nothingness prior to its somethingness - lol


Maybe it was. lol

Based upon the idea that energy and matter can't be created or destroyed. I think it's more likely that the birth of the universe as we know it was the end of the last universe.... or at least was caused by the death of the last universe..... all hearsay!


----------



## H R Puff N Stuff (Oct 30, 2013)

even nothing is something


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 30, 2013)

H R Puff N Stuff said:


> even nothing is something


If space exists for nothing to 'be in', then that's not actually nothing. lol

True 'nothing' is a lack of space and time as well. Hard on the head, IMO.


----------



## sso (Oct 30, 2013)

How do you turn the religious atheist?

Get them to Actually read their text of faith. (Whether its christianity or islam or buddhism.)


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 30, 2013)

Balzac89 said:


> Aren't you just indoctrinating him with your beliefs? How is that any different from organized religion?
> 
> I am not religious in any sense.


No, I am educating him. When indoctrinating someone, they are expected not to question the ideas or concepts being conveyed. I have always told my son not to take anyone's word for anything, even mine as I could be mistaken about anything that I am conveying. Instead, he was encouraged to question everything and to look things up for himself. As he grew older, he has looked into many different religions, and usually laughed his ass off. He's also caught me in some inaccuracies, and we both learn together as I change my beliefs accordingly...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 30, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> No, I am educating him. When indoctrinating someone, they are expected not to question the ideas or concepts being conveyed. I have always told my son not to take anyone's word for anything, even mine as I could be mistaken about anything that I am conveying. Instead, he was encouraged to question everything and to look things up for himself. As he grew older, he has looked into many different religions, and usually laughed his ass off. He's also caught me in some inaccuracies, and we both learn together as I change my beliefs accordingly...


This is what separates your parental skills from a strict, religious, families parental skills.. In all honesty, it's a little depressing to not believe in a fairy tale happy ending, but reality is what it is.. there's no need to beat around the bush and raise false hopes.


----------



## schuylaar (Oct 30, 2013)

i'm atheist and i don't like telling people because of their reaction..


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 30, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> This is what separates your parental skills from a strict, religious, families parental skills.. In all honesty, it's a little depressing to not believe in a fairy tale happy ending, but reality is what it is.. there's no need to beat around the bush and raise false hopes.


Right, Hep. I think what is depressing is promising a child something that doesn't exist i.e. santa, jesus, disney, and then having that thing ripped away from them as they get older. If you never make the false promise in the first place, there's nothing to feel depressed about...


----------



## Balzac89 (Oct 30, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> No, I am educating him. When indoctrinating someone, they are expected not to question the ideas or concepts being conveyed. I have always told my son not to take anyone's word for anything, even mine as I could be mistaken about anything that I am conveying. Instead, he was encouraged to question everything and to look things up for himself. As he grew older, he has looked into many different religions, and usually laughed his ass off. He's also caught me in some inaccuracies, and we both learn together as I change my beliefs accordingly...


As Humans we have been wrong far more than we have ever been right.


----------



## joe macclennan (Oct 30, 2013)

Balzac89 said:


> As Humans we have been wrong far more than we have ever been right.



except for me.. I thought I was wrong once, it turns out I was mistaken


----------



## Balzac89 (Oct 30, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> except for me.. I thought I was wrong once, it turns out I was mistaken


Roughly right 90 percent of the time.


----------



## joe macclennan (Oct 30, 2013)

hope i'm right 90%tonight in poker


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 30, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> This is what separates your parental skills from a strict, religious, families parental skills.. In all honesty, it's a little depressing to not believe in a fairy tale happy ending, but reality is what it is.. there's no need to beat around the bush and raise false hopes.


That's the ironic catch 22 about intelligence; you work hard, study and research things to know about the world to be a happy more successful person, and the more you find out about it, the farther away from happy a person tends to sway. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. (stage 1)

But I've thought about that a lot, and I've come to the conclusion that what those people are experiencing isn't real happiness, it's a facade, an illusion. To them, they don't see it and the distinction doesn't matter, but to us [atheists], it's obvious and apparent. (stage 2)

I think to reach what I would truly consider happiness (stage 3) would be to fully accept life as it is and be as intellectually honest with yourself about it as you can be, then find the things that make the people in stage 1 happy, alter the recipe to fit your own life, morals and values, and pursue that with the most passion and enthusiasm possible. Improvements in things like finances, physical appearance, etc. tend to be positive side effects of living that sort of life from what I've seen, so long as you're committed and consistent. 


If you're at an awesome party, the last thing you're worried about is it ending, right?

Make your party awesome.


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Oct 30, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> fin is that you?


No, Im not Finsaggy if thats who you mean. Im Christ. My full Name is George Manuel Oliveira. Check out My signature if you want to learn about Me.

I honestly dont know much about Finshaggy because he doesnt post much in this subforum but I did watch one of his videos where he said God is a monkey. I thought that was funny.

Im a Prophet with the most high prophecies. I have come to give even the Atheists something greater to believe in, like a loving paradise from a higher power. But no one cares or believes but Im still going to try even if its futility.

PEACE


----------



## schuylaar (Oct 30, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> No, Im not Finsaggy if thats who you mean. Im Christ. My full Name is George Manuel Oliveira. Check out My signature if you want to learn about Me.
> 
> I honestly dont know much about Finshaggy because he doesnt post much in this subforum but I did watch one of his videos where he said God is a monkey. I thought that was funny.
> 
> ...


george..atheist don't believe in any higher power..


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Oct 30, 2013)

schuylaar said:


> george..atheist don't believe in any higher power..


Sure they do, Atheists tend to believe science. I may be mistaken but isnt science their "higher power"? Not that they bow down to science or anything, but they tend to revere and respect it with great esteem because that where they get some of their answers from.

And to be candid, I think Atheists deep down inside know that there is SOME power greater then themselves, for example someone smarter then their self. I know they dont believe in any gods but they should know that there are smarter people then their self and therfore a "power" greater then their self.

But I have never been an atheist so I cant speak for them and I wouldnt know, but I can speculate.

PEACE


----------



## schuylaar (Oct 30, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Sure they do, Atheists tend to believe science. I may be mistaken but isnt science their "higher power"? Not that they bow down to science or anything, but they tend to revere and respect it with great esteem because that where they get some of their answers from.
> 
> And to be candid, I think Atheists deep down inside know that there is SOME power greater then themselves, for example someone smarter then their self. I know they dont believe in any gods but they should know that there are smarter people then their self and therfore a "power" greater then their self.
> 
> ...


atheists are open to anything but we have to see it to believe it..a statement must be true or it doesn't make sense to us..we like facts


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 30, 2013)

Balzac89 said:


> As Humans we have been wrong far more than we have ever been right.


Yes. Failure is a by-product of success...


----------



## sso (Oct 30, 2013)

Shit, we can give ourselves whatever fairytale ending we want. Even if we were really wrong about it, we would never know.
Bring some magic back to life by not giving a fuck about the ending.

There is after all absolutely nothing to be done about it anyways, might as well just forget about it in a "Eh its probably gonna be good."


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 30, 2013)

[youtube]UemhCsaeGgc[/youtube]


----------



## grimreefer24601 (Oct 30, 2013)

Whether someone feels differently about you or not, what do you believe? If you're not strong enough to stand behind your own beliefs, what kind of pansy are you? If you're scared to admit you don't believe in God, you're still afraid of God, which means you believe in God, which means you're not an Atheist, and so on....


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Oct 30, 2013)

Its not God their afraid of, its the judgement and ridicule they get from not believing in god. Not many people have that problem here in Canada apparently. Not nearly as many religious people here in Canada compared to the U.S. Mostly just agnostics, atheists and theists that just believe theres something greater out there. Thank GOD my mother didnt take after my very religious grandma. Now excuse me, I got an artsy up-side-down burning cross to carve into a pumpkin, I hope it turns out like I imagine it!


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 31, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Sure they do, Atheists tend to believe science. I may be mistaken but isnt science their "higher power"? Not that they bow down to science or anything, but they tend to revere and respect it with great esteem because that where they get some of their answers from.
> 
> And to be candid, I think Atheists deep down inside know that there is SOME power greater then themselves, for example someone smarter then their self. I know they dont believe in any gods but they should know that there are smarter people then their self and therfore a "power" greater then their self.
> 
> ...


Not all atheists have to believe in science or facts.. From what I've seen, they tend to follow logic though. Still, I can be a really dumb atheist and not believe in facts. I can say the earth is flat and still be an atheist. 

*I think Atheists deep down inside know that there is SOME power greater then themselves
*I think this thought comes from the guilt or sadness alot of atheists have to go through. This thread is an example. It's not that I believe in a higher power, it's that I want to. I wanted to keep believing in santa too, but I've come to the conclusion that he's not real (not a recent discovery lol).


----------



## schuylaar (Oct 31, 2013)

grimreefer24601 said:


> Whether someone feels differently about you or not, what do you believe? If you're not strong enough to stand behind your own beliefs, what kind of pansy are you? If you're scared to admit you don't believe in God, you're still afraid of God, which means you believe in God, which means you're not an Atheist, and so on....


for me..it's the reaction..the look..everyone tries to immediately debate it or convert you..this is what religious persecution feels like these days..i'm proud to admit i think in logical, fact-based terms and true statements.


----------



## GreyLord (Oct 31, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> No, Im not Finsaggy if thats who you mean. Im Christ. My full Name is George Manuel Oliveira. Check out My signature if you want to learn about Me.
> 
> I honestly dont know much about Finshaggy because he doesnt post much in this subforum but I did watch one of his videos where he said God is a monkey. I thought that was funny.
> 
> ...


No,no, no,....Nevaeh is nothing like fin, in most ways. Nevaeh is polite, friendly, well mannered, well groomed & I'm sure that unlike finMcbumshaggy, his personal hygiene is above reproach. But...as much as I like you George, your as mad as a cut snake, seriously. Your not any more a prophet than the rest of us. And if your the 'Christ', then so am I & Tom & Dick & Mary & everyone else except for finbaby of course.

I sometimes wonder if you just come here to day dream & fantasize? Your either as mad as a cut snake or smarter than some may think. As Stewie saiys "It's fun to play dress ups." 

And peace to you.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 31, 2013)

schuylaar said:


> ..everyone tries to immediately debate it or convert you..this is what religious persecution feels like these days..


Religious persecution, lol. A believer will face more of that from the denominational 'war' that goes on in religion. Have you ever noticed that whatever the endeavor a whole bunch of sht has to happen before getting to the good stuff?


----------



## JonnyAppleSeed420 (Oct 31, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Im a Prophet with the most high prophecies. I have come to give even the Atheists something greater to believe in, like a loving paradise from a higher power. But no one cares or believes but Im still going to try even if its futility.
> 
> PEACE


Really!...Go sell your wears elsewhere, you born again? Don't go towards the light!...Its a TRAIN!..._JAS_


----------



## hydrogreen65 (Oct 31, 2013)

And if you wanna stay religious, then don't get too serious about it. Cause once you start really studying and researching , you're gonna see it for what it is. Nothing but a way to control people, and mans inability to deal with the fact that when you die it's a wrap, done, over with.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Oct 31, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I've mentioned not really believing in god before, but today I mentioned how I'm an atheist to my parents while talking about religion. I didn't want to lie about a belief in god, so I let them know. My dad shared his religious views. He told me not to worry too much, but I'm not supposed to deny god. He also said nobody knows and that he questions it too. BUT I'm still not supposed to deny god. My mom was just very disappointed. Kept saying it was her FAULT (which means she finds a fault in me too) because she didn't take me to church as a kid. She said she should have done better. Not many people can get to me, but that one hurt. I feel like shit right now honestly. Starting to think I may end up in hell and eat my words. I wouldn't consider this hatred as I've experienced true hate due to my lack of belief, but this really hit me in a bad way. Just wondering if anybody else has gone through something like this either from family or a close friend. I honestly don't care if I offend a strangers beliefs, but when my own mom is truly disappointed in me, well it sucks!
> 
> &#8220;Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
> 
> ...



Just be a good person,Ya your mom sais she is disappointed and she sais she should have done better,,prove that she couldnt have done any better even while being an atheist or no matter what you may believe.Atheists can certainly be dam good people,if not better than believers.For her to say that to you is f$#ed up!I think she is brainwashed and attempting a guilt trip on [email protected]#k that!You are your own person never forget that.Her flaws are her own and not yours.My 2 cents. Peace.


----------



## Indicakat (Nov 1, 2013)

I can't believe I saw this post, because I feel exactly like you do. When I got sick from Hcv infection, I got the cancerous type through no fault of my own, I have never cheated once on my husband and I received this std through no fault of my own and have been going through horrible treatment, with horrible effects, although the blood results and pictures taken, show that my tumors are shrinking and I am responding to treatment. But I felt the same, I grew up most of my life with my grandparents, who we're practicing atheist, but at the age of 14 my mom who had drug problems, was supposedly clean and I moved in with her, and she is a total hypocritical catholic who puts me down for my views. I saw a show with Hawkins sayings there is no god, he's so damn smart I can't explain it, but it made since at the time. When I got sick, I knew their was no god because I didn't do anything wrong, I am a loyal, dedicated wife, that has has to pay a few times in the past for for my husbands mistakes, why the hell am I going through this, when I did nothing wrong, but be a good wife. I was so angry. My mom won't even speak to me when I told her to take her bs and shove it up her ass. I had a ton of anger when I found out I had cancer, especially at god, I decided their was no god, why do bad things happen to totally innocent people, children, Newtown shooting, starvation in third world country. I do believe in something higher than myself, I believe in a higher power that is greater than myself, I just have no idea who or what it is! But it does make me feel terrible that it has created a major rift between my mom and myself, we were just trying to rebuild a relationship, and now she's not even speaking to me, including my religious two sisters, they both converted to Catholicism and say I'm blastphomist, I don't know how to spell it. Sorry. Right now I'm going through a rough time and I don't even have my families support, they think I'm the devil or something because of my views. I just was happy and it saddens me that someone else is going through the same thing I am, if you know any support or how you get through it, please let me know, it does hurt like hell! Thanks for the post! I feel like I have someone I can identify with, with you!


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 1, 2013)

My athiesm has effected my family aswell.


----------



## Someacdude (Nov 1, 2013)

Without reading al the nonsense that usually pops up on threads like this let me assure you of one thing.

True Christians dont hate anyone, true Christians came from the same earth you did , in fact that was the whole reason for imo Christ coming to earth, so he could live as a man and know exactly what it was like.
At any rate, true Christians are not judgmental people, they follow Biblical principals as closely as they can. 

Self righteous people give Christianity a bad name, most never open their bibles. 

Rahab was a harlot , but because of her act of kindness she in fact is included in the linage for Jesus Christ.

I wish you no ill will what so ever, i hope you find what you seek, being a True Christian is very hard , we arent any different than anyone else, we are just volunteers , who found Christ. 

Go in peace, keep warm and well fed.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 2, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Without reading al the nonsense that usually pops up on threads like this let me assure you of one thing.
> 
> True Christians dont hate anyone, true Christians came from the same earth you did , in fact that was the whole reason for imo Christ coming to earth, so he could live as a man and know exactly what it was like.
> At any rate, true Christians are not judgmental people, they follow Biblical principals as closely as they can.
> ...


No True Scotsman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


----------



## Someacdude (Nov 2, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> No True Scotsman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


Today its almost impossible to tell true Christians from those 'who have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power'
With the advent of the electric church , widespread bloodshed promoted by certain churches , violence , lies, deceit, greed, that is why Christ said there would be those who claimed great works inhis name, however he also said he would tell them ' get away from me you workers of lawlessness '

I know its difficult but try and see things from the upside, in this world full of wickedness, somewhere, someone has to be trying to make things better, one person at a time.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 2, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> Today its almost impossible to tell true Christians from those 'who have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power'
> With the advent of the electric church , widespread bloodshed promoted by certain churches , violence , lies, deceit, greed, that is why Christ said there would be those who claimed great works inhis name, however he also said he would tell them ' get away from me you workers of lawlessness '
> 
> I know its difficult but try and see things from the upside, in this world full of wickedness, somewhere, someone has to be trying to make things better, one person at a time.


If the bible is any indication of what 'true Christians' were like in the past, they were x10 worse back in the day.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 2, 2013)

Nevaeh420 said:


> Sure they do, Atheists tend to believe science. I may be mistaken but isnt science their "higher power"? Not that they bow down to science or anything, but they tend to revere and respect it with great esteem because that where they get some of their answers from.
> 
> And to be candid, I think Atheists deep down inside know that there is SOME power greater then themselves, for example someone smarter then their self. I know they dont believe in any gods but they should know that there are smarter people then their self and therfore a "power" greater then their self.
> 
> ...


[youtube]nOQnaREmZoM[/youtube]


----------



## Someacdude (Nov 2, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> If the bible is any indication of what 'true Christians' were like in the past, they were x10 worse back in the day.


And we have a winner, see the op was all about how so called christians hate atheism when in fact it is the other way around.

The Bible especially the greek scriptures where nothing more than a tutor leading up to the Christ or Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law.

The Bible is an honest historical document that hasnt failed yet, it foretold the earth was round thousands of years before Columbus. 
Prophecies have been and continue to be fulfilled even today.

To understand the Bible you also need to understand civilization at that time. The scripture is honest since it reports everything good and bad that the Jewish leaders did at that time AND their punishment. 
Making a arbitrary / out of context statement like that one you just made is more akin to dr k or uncle schmuck and doesnt add anything to the discussion.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 2, 2013)

http://bibviz.com/

[youtube]RB3g6mXLEKk[/youtube]


----------



## Someacdude (Nov 2, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> http://bibviz.com/
> 
> [youtube]RB3g6mXLEKk[/youtube]


And again, my advise is to actually read the book. 
Imagine television is only 70 years old and the net not even that, yet people believe anything they read electronically .

Its funny, i dont tell anyone else what they believe and yet here we are again. 

Im out, have a wonderful day and i hope those hurt by* any* belief system here peace.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 2, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> And we have a winner, see the op was all about how so called christians hate atheism when in fact it is the other way around.
> 
> The Bible especially the greek scriptures where nothing more than a tutor leading up to the Christ or Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law.
> 
> ...



It's not arbitrary or out of context. Christians in the bible behaved like petty, superstitious, cruel, misogynistic heathens. Even the WBC led by the insufferable douche bag, Fred Phelps, is tame compared to 'real Christians' of the bible.

Let's not forget the bible is an incomplete works, that was thrown together by a council because they were promised money by Emperor Constantine for uniting the Christian 'factions' or that bits of the bible were changed, or even omitted completely. Then there's the fact that none of the new testament was written first hand. It was written decades or even centuries after the facts happened. Before then, it was told by word of mouth....

So, the bible is honest? Seriously? Talking snakes, pillars of salt, parting seas, resurrection, end of days?

'Honest' is not the first word that comes to mind. 


*Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. - Isaac Asimov


EDIT: *And I don't hate Christians, I just think their ideology is borderline retarded.


----------



## dashcues (Nov 2, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> If the bible is any indication of what 'true Christians' were like in the past, they were x10 worse back in the day.


The same can be said for most of humanity,not just Christians.
But curious.What does the bible, concerning the New Testament,indicate of Christians at the time? Surely not that they were some powerful empire.Not yet,anyhow.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 2, 2013)

Someacdude said:


> And again, my advise is to actually read the book.
> Imagine television is only 70 years old and the net not even that, yet people believe anything they read electronically .
> 
> Its funny, i dont tell anyone else what they believe and yet here we are again.
> ...


ive read it twice, and it is exactly as hiesenburg expresses, a bunch of contradictory , indoctrinated rhetoric that anyone with cognitive process not enslaved by fear can see as a engineered way to control people looking for guidance

every story in the book can be traced to older cultures and books were constantly revised and removed as the religion progressed, only letting Christians read and accept , Books deemed ok by men, not divine right

and the fact that the book says so many unethical and immoral things to do as a christian both agiasnt non Christians and women and people of other races

i find it in contempt of peace and trust and acceptance , and their to make a small few rich and wealthy, 10% my ass, what the fuck does god need a church for when he has a book that is supposed to have all the answers

the most important figure in the new testament was missing for 17 years and the NT completely contradict on a visceral level the old testament ...im mean come on


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 2, 2013)

dashcues said:


> The same can be said for most of humanity,not just Christians.
> But curious.What does the bible, concerning the New Testament,indicate of Christians at the time? Surely not that they were some powerful empire.Not yet,anyhow.


I agree. Yet, the rest of humanity has evolved.....

We've discovered germ theory.
We've embraced science and technology, and because of that we've exponentially increased our abilities, and our reach.
We've made huge strides in helping to curb poverty in many parts of the world.
We've eliminated capital punishment in most of the world.
These are just a few things I could think of off the top of my head, there's many more.

Yet, people still cling to this antiquated book, like it's the best thing that ever happened to the world, when it's arguably been the cause of more death and destruction than anything else, ever, in history.


----------



## dashcues (Nov 2, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> I agree. Yet, the rest of humanity has evolved.....
> 
> We've discovered germ theory.
> We've embraced science and technology, and because of that we've exponentially increased our abilities, and our reach.
> ...


And yet,Christianity has contributed to these endeavors.



Beefbisquit said:


> Yet, people still cling to this antiquated book, like it's the best thing that ever happened to the world
> , when it's arguably been the cause of more death and destruction than anything else, ever, in history.


Not even close.Though,i would like to see your source for this.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 2, 2013)

How has the belief in Christ directly contributed to those things? Do scientists get in their lab coats and pray for answers? The one I might concede is poverty. There are a ton of companies giving food and bibles to starving people. 

Religious wars have spanned centuries.... the most brutal and barbaric tortures were often done by religious people in the name of god. Salem witch trials? Crusades? Inquisition? 30 years war? WWII? I'm not just picking on Christians either, Islam has its bloody history (and present), too.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 2, 2013)

dashcues said:


> Not even close.Though,i would like to see your source for this.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#List_of_major_religious_wars

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

Organized religion has absolutely facilitated the deaths of *b*illions of people throughout history


----------



## dashcues (Nov 3, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> How has the belief in Christ directly contributed to those things? Do scientists get in their lab coats and pray for answers? The one I might concede is poverty. There are a ton of companies giving food and bibles to starving people.


Belief in Christ is inherent to Christians.A part of their attributes.All I've ever known give credit of their accomplishments to Jesus Christ.I'd wager most,if not all,would say their belief in Christ "directly contributed" to their achievements.
And Louis Pasteur was a Christian.With an education at a Jesuit University.

Speaking of the Jesuits.Their contributions are too many to list here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus 

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

Christianity is blamed for the bad its believers have done. Shouldn't it also be acknowledged for the good its believers have done?



Beefbisquit said:


> Religious wars have spanned centuries.... the most brutal and barbaric tortures were often done by religious people in the name of god.


Wars have been fought for territories,hierarchies,freedom,etc. One thing about mankind,we know how to war.
I have no desire to compare which were more brutal.Although honestly,the descriptions of torture devices from the inquisition were some of the most horrific examples I've ever read.



Beefbisquit said:


> Salem witch trials? Crusades? Inquisition? 30 years war? WWII? I'm not just picking on Christians either, Islam has its bloody history (and present), too.


Do you blame the whole of Christianity for these acts?


----------



## dashcues (Nov 3, 2013)

Padawanbater2 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war#List_of_major_religious_wars
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence
> 
> Organized religion has absolutely facilitated the deaths of *b*illions of people throughout history


Can you show me in either of the two links you posted where it says Christianity has caused billions of deaths throughout history? Not doubting you,but I can't find that amount on your links.
What I see on your first link under "List of major religious wars" is at highest 24 million and at lowest 8,130,000.
Now granted that's not all of Christianities malicious acts throughout history,but i would add that it's still quite a ways from "billions".

Disturbing to be tallying up death rates for a comparison.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 3, 2013)

dashcues said:


> Belief in Christ is inherent to Christians.A part of their attributes.All I've ever known give credit of their accomplishments to Jesus Christ.I'd wager most,if not all,would say their belief in Christ "directly contributed" to their achievements.
> And Louis Pasteur was a Christian.With an education at a Jesuit University.


People can claim all kinds of things. I want to see _evidence_ on how Christianity has directly influenced scientific achievements in history. What *biblical passage* led to germ theory? What *revealed truth* has given us beneficial technology?


> Speaking of the Jesuits.Their contributions are too many to list here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
> 
> Christianity is blamed for the bad its believers have done. Shouldn't it also be acknowledged for the good its believers have done?


Any good deed done by a Christian in the name of Christ, could have been done by an atheist, e.g. Charitable works. Any bad deed done by a Christian, in the name of Christ, could only have been done by another religious person, e.g. killing opposing factions, religious cleansing, torture based on religious texts, etc., ad nauseum.




> Wars have been fought for territories,hierarchies,freedom,etc. One thing about mankind,we know how to war.


At least currently, the main reason to fight has usually been ideological. 

Syria? Egypt? Iraq? Israel? 9/11?



> I have no desire to compare which were more brutal.Although honestly,the descriptions of torture devices from the inquisition were some of the most horrific examples I've ever read.


I saw a brutal torture exhibit that was on tour across the USA. It was owned by private collectors that volunteered their antique torture devices for display. The descriptions were absolutely horrendous, and the worst of the devices were reserved for heretics, blasphemers, and people suspected of witchcraft. 



> Do you blame the whole of Christianity for these acts?


I blame Christianity for allowing them to happen. I blame Christianity for wearing a very clever disguise of serfdom, while at the same time being one of the richest, greediest, corrupt organizations that has ever existed. I blame Christianity for harboring criminals and enacting multitudes of cover ups for the sole reason of 'saving face'.


----------



## MojoRison (Nov 3, 2013)

Life is a mystery and a beautiful one at that.


----------



## dashcues (Nov 3, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> People can claim all kinds of things. I want to see _evidence_ on how Christianity has directly influenced scientific achievements in history. What *biblical passage* led to germ theory? What *revealed truth* has given us beneficial technology?


Huh?
Biblical passages?Even at its inception,Christianity entailed much more than Biblical passages. Prima scriptura?
Some of the most respected universities in the world began as Christian institutions.Yale,Harvard.How is that not influential?



Beefbisquit said:


> Any good deed done by a Christian in the name of Christ, could have been done by an atheist, e.g. Charitable works. Any bad deed done by a Christian, in the name of Christ, could only have been done by another religious person, e.g. killing opposing factions, religious cleansing, torture based on religious texts, etc., ad nauseum.


Sounds like a double standard.Christians do good,you say anyone could do it.Christians do bad,and you say only they could do it.



Beefbisquit said:


> At least currently, the main reason to fight has usually been ideological.
> 
> Syria? Egypt? Iraq? Israel? 9/11?


I'd argue power,in all it's guises,is the main reason for war.Religion being only one facet.




Beefbisquit said:


> I saw a brutal torture exhibit that was on tour across the USA. It was owned by private collectors that volunteered their antique torture devices for display. The descriptions were absolutely horrendous, and the worst of the devices were reserved for heretics, blasphemers, and people suspected of witchcraft.


A touring torture exhibit.How macabre! 



Beefbisquit said:


> I blame Christianity for allowing them to happen. I blame Christianity for wearing a very clever disguise of serfdom, while at the same time being one of the richest, greediest, corrupt organizations that has ever existed. I blame Christianity for harboring criminals and enacting multitudes of cover ups for the sole reason of 'saving face'.


And what of the innocent Cathars?Would you blame the victims?What about denominations that sprang up after and have nothing to do with any horrible acts you've mentioned?Are they the proverbial baby,being thrown out with the bathwater?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 3, 2013)

dashcues said:


> Huh?
> Biblical passages?Even at its inception,Christianity entailed much more than Biblical passages. Prima scriptura?
> Some of the most respected universities in the world began as Christian institutions.Yale,Harvard.How is that not influential?


How does the founding members of a university belonging to a certain denomination have anything to do with the scientific studies and experimentation done at the university? The scientific method works independent of any religion.




> Sounds like a double standard.Christians do good,you say anyone could do it.Christians do bad,and you say only they could do it.


It's not a double standard, it's a serious statement about the very nature of religious conflict. The fact that religious teachings are at their very nature, incompatible with each other. Only the 'word of god' can instill such devotion to killing other humans with such merciless resolve and contempt.




> I'd argue power,in all it's guises,is the main reason for war.Religion being only one facet.


Again, the 'word of god' makes people do crazy stuff... What ideologies, other than various religions, make people believe that doing such terrible, terrible things is not only O.K., but 'divine'? What other ideologies can possibly have that kind of 'power'? Claiming to know what the maker of the universe wants people to do is pretty much the ultimate power play, and lets men do the worst things, guilt free.




> A touring torture exhibit.How macabre!


It was crazy.... a lot of the pieces were from Italy... 




> And what of the innocent Cathars?Would you blame the victims?What about denominations that sprang up after and have nothing to do with any horrible acts you've mentioned?Are they the proverbial baby,being thrown out with the bathwater?


It depends. There are so many sects and denominations it makes it hard to paint them with one stroke, but seeing as how the bible teaches misogyny, homophobia, and a slew of other things that I believe are immoral, I'd say that their starting point puts them off to a bad start.


----------



## Balzac89 (Nov 3, 2013)

Outside of the nuclear and gravitational forces I highly doubt there is a higher controlling power. 

But then again wtf do I know?


----------



## dashcues (Nov 3, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> How does the founding members of a university belonging to a certain denomination have anything to do with the scientific studies and experimentation done at the university? The scientific method works independent of any religion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good points,Beef.
And good conversation.It's much appreciated.
I'm actually going to pause here for a second.I understand we're going off-topic from the intent of Hep's thread.From both our replies it would seem this could get "lengthy".And I do not want to continue to derail Hep's thread without his approval.
Or,we could start a new thread?
Either way,I hope to pick this up right where we're at.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 3, 2013)

New thread created. 

Carry on! lol


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 4, 2013)

dashcues said:


> Disturbing to be tallying up death rates for a comparison.


disturbing that people don't tally up how many deaths their club has contributed to before trying to become a member


----------



## Indicakat (Nov 4, 2013)

Amen to the above, I thank you on the many insights of Christianity, like I said, I had a lot of anger when I found out I was sick, and like I said, I grew up as an atheist raised by my grandparents and didn't know anything about Christianity until I was forced to live with my mother when she was supposedly had gotten clean from her prescription narcotic abuse, which was total bullshit, and forced into a Catholic High School, which totally screwed up the most important years of my informative growing period, from 14 years to 17 I attended, and fell like I was a total outcast. I went along with everything, after learning a couple times not to doubt anything said, by being slapped with rulers, I was punched in the gut by a nun for saying " for Jesus Christ" and when I urinated for two days I bled. I thought at that age I was wrong and didn't tell anyone bout how these nuns tortured me, so I just learned to shut up and agree with all they hAd to say. I really want to believe their is something out there greater than me, I know there is, but like I said, I just don't know what. Believe it to not, even though I am uncertain, I have prayed to God many times throughout my illness, and my husband has even said that there may be a God, you are getting better, you are responding to treatment, that may be the sign that I was looking for. It's all so confusing, I agree so much with beafbisquit, about how many people have been killed over religion? Remember the world trade series centers? Then wars were created over that, not because of payback, but for mans greed for oil! We didn't go after bin laden, we went to war with Iraq than Afghanistan all over lies about nuclear weapons, yellow cake uranium which was a lie, just a reason for our greed to get oil.
You see all through history, which is scary, because history repeats itself, all of the wars fought over religion, the crusades, there were probabably 8 to 10 of them with many people killed over the name of religion. They use religion as a pretext to make offensive war for personal profit, ie: to get land. The witch hunts in Salem, the list goes on. 
I see so much hypocrisy around me, my husband's ex wife, ALWAYS says, "I'm a Christian, I would never do that", yet she is one of the most perverse, evil person I have ever met! I have tried to forgive her, but she has been divorced from my husband for over 18 years, and is still obsessed with my husband, and always makes up lies about me, she has posted on my Facebook account that I am a crack whore, which I have never even tried in my entire life, I swear. Tried snorting In my college years, but it was a short phase while in college, I was never an addict. But she used my friends info to accept her as a friend and posted so many lies that hurt me and my family. She calls my husband a rapist, that her child with him is a result of him raping and beating her, yet she had his child and married him! Yet she claims she is a Christian, goes to church like 3 times a week, and has bible studies at her house, yet she does nothing but lies and hurts people. She has sent me emails with attachments of old videos of her having sex with my husband, even sent them to my parents and my son from my previous marriage. And I see all my neighbors, I'm the outcast of the street, they seem to all go to the same church, yet on Sundays they wear their nice clothes and go to church on Sundays, and act like perfect Christians, but the rest of the week, some of them are horrible. They have stolen from us, if I leave anything in my car or my yard, it will be stolen. Now I have a security system and have had to go to court over them stealing our mail. Which had a credit card in it, and this methhead stole thousands of dollars. I am not a snitch, but it had to recover the money from my bank so I had to file a police report, even though we refused to press charges. His children then egged my house and car, so now we have cameras and a good security system. 
Yet I do know some incredibly nice Christians that actually are great people, who are very kind and giving, and do live a life that the bible would approve of. I guess there are just good Christians and bad, just like aethiest, I'm sure there are some wonderful good ones, and some bad seeds like every religion I have found. 
I'm sorry, I feel like I took your thread and feelings away, Hephaestus420, it was just so refreshing to see someone else, felt the same way I did. I felt guilty also, as you did with your family, it's always nice to know that you are not alone, and it has given me more insight into religion. I know Buddhism is really not a religion, but I relate to it the most for right now, and I appreciate that people here are open to others views and thoughts, even if they do not agree with them, they have a right, as we all do, thank you, first amendment for free speech!


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 6, 2013)

Indicakat said:


> I can't believe I saw this post, because I feel exactly like you do. When I got sick from Hcv infection, I got the cancerous type through no fault of my own, I have never cheated once on my husband and I received this std through no fault of my own and have been going through horrible treatment, with horrible effects, although the blood results and pictures taken, show that my tumors are shrinking and I am responding to treatment. But I felt the same, I grew up most of my life with my grandparents, who we're practicing atheist, but at the age of 14 my mom who had drug problems, was supposedly clean and I moved in with her, and she is a total hypocritical catholic who puts me down for my views. I saw a show with Hawkins sayings there is no god, he's so damn smart I can't explain it, but it made since at the time. When I got sick, I knew their was no god because I didn't do anything wrong, I am a loyal, dedicated wife, that has has to pay a few times in the past for for my husbands mistakes, why the hell am I going through this, when I did nothing wrong, but be a good wife. I was so angry. My mom won't even speak to me when I told her to take her bs and shove it up her ass. I had a ton of anger when I found out I had cancer, especially at god, I decided their was no god, why do bad things happen to totally innocent people, children, Newtown shooting, starvation in third world country. I do believe in something higher than myself, I believe in a higher power that is greater than myself, I just have no idea who or what it is! But it does make me feel terrible that it has created a major rift between my mom and myself, we were just trying to rebuild a relationship, and now she's not even speaking to me, including my religious two sisters, they both converted to Catholicism and say I'm blastphomist, I don't know how to spell it. Sorry. Right now I'm going through a rough time and I don't even have my families support, they think I'm the devil or something because of my views. I just was happy and it saddens me that someone else is going through the same thing I am, if you know any support or how you get through it, please let me know, it does hurt like hell! Thanks for the post! I feel like I have someone I can identify with, with you!


I'm glad to hear you're responding well to the treatments. Also glad you're not depending on "god" to help you in life anymore. He really isn't much help even if he exists. What annoys me is that I can tell somebody about your problems and ask why would god do that to an innocent person and they'll reply "god works in mysterious ways". That's not true. Life (not god) works in mysterious ways. When a tornado hits a town, god isn't doing it to punish everybody, it's just a physical reaction from earth that ended up destroying some things with no intent on harming anybody.. So don't blame yourself for anything bad that goes on in your life that you can't control. 

You don't have to be sad for me, I'm not sad myself. Every once in a while I feel guilt when I think of how my parents must not have much common sense since they believe in talking snakes or when I point things out to them like how there's plenty of CHILDREN burning in hell, if hell exists. Which would be true if the bible is an honest book. There's already children burning in hell. This of course saddens them, but how the hell is that MY fault? For pointing things out that are already in the bible they're supposed to follow and dedicate their lives to? Don't get mad at me, get mad at the book. I also hate how people think you are the devil because you don't believe. I've recently begun telling people to not worry about what's gonna happen to me in the afterlife. What does it matter to them? As long as I'm not hurting anybody, leave me da fuq alone! If you (not you, indicakat) believe I'm going to hell, fine! maybe I deserve it, but fuck off for now, jesus. 

Again, don't be sad that we have a little more logic than the average christian. Nope, be happy. We can find happiness without a book and we won't have to worry or get mad when somebody questions our beliefs. We won't have to fear losing our faith. I'm sorry to hear your mom and sister are being dicks about this. It's what religion does to people. You have to understand she takes religion as a fact of life. Something that WILL happen. The bible tells them not to question the lord and only follow him. It tells them to try and convert people, but if they don't listen, dust off your knees and walk away (more or less). In my first post, I left some quotes from the bible (I believe they were supposed to be from jesus, can't say for sure). They show that christianity isn't here so everybody can get together and be happy.. it's here for your own personal salvation. And if anybody gets in your way, cast them aside otherwise you'll go down with them (the blasphemers, which would be you in this case). So I know it's hard because that's your very family, but if they can't love you because of your beliefs, then oh well. Just another reason why religion leaves me with an overall bad feeling. 

As for support, well I came to RIU. There's VERY intelligent minds here who really can and will help if you're polite and ask. These people are actually responsible for the start of my "atheist journey". They didn't just call me a dumbass and send me on my way. They helped me get through the fear of losing my religion and facing reality for what it truly is. They also helped me to gain new views on life.. With these views, I get through the hatred brought on by religious people. Some advice would be to just not talk about religion with them at all. I've realized that you really cannot fight with a delusional person. They will fight with every bit of false logic and crappy explanations they have stored in their minds. And if you do crack them, they'll only be really depressed. So I just make myself available to anybody who wants to hear my views now. It annoys me that people can go around saying "god bless you".. but I can't go around saying "god doesn't exists" haha.. It's annoying that they can hate us and feel fine, but we feel dumb for hating anybody for their beliefs (to an extent of course). Religious people don't play a fair game, but we're forced to play by their rules. 

I'm tired, so i'm sorry if I'm not making sense  hope I helped a little, and feel free to get your support from us if you're ever down in the dumps.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 6, 2013)

and haha.. it's fine that you guys "derailed" my thread. I liked the conversation that was going on. So for now on, you guys have my permission to crash hep's threads. Have fun, I'm gonna go find the new thread now.


----------



## skunkd0c (Nov 6, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> It takes most people years, if not decades to be able to master such seemingly simple things as telekenesis.


Telekinesis or Psychokinesis has never been scientifically proven, has it ? 
are you getting confused with telepathy ?

I would of never described being able to move matter with the "power of the mind" a seemingly simple thing.

Have you seen the movie Carrie or read Stephen kings book, or perhaps watched Uri Geller bend some spoons with his mind LOL

peace


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 7, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> *Removed*


I actually think some of those mentalist guys might just be EPIC TROLLS that are actually telepathic, that would be hilarious. Either way, the stuff they can do is amazing. 

Oh, and when you become rich and stuff, buy me a house and I'll introduce you to two of my friends that can take part in your controlled experiments that demonstrate the capabilities and physics of spirit and what not. Nah Im kiddin, not kiddin about my friends though. Stuff like this will become common knowledge in time, and it will be at just the right time it should happen, so be patient, Im not too worried about it, excited if anything. 

Peace my fellow bat-shit-crazy godly bastard.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Nov 7, 2013)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I actually think some of those mentalist guys might just be EPIC TROLLS that are actually telepathic, that would be hilarious. Either way, the stuff they can do is amazing.


 Which mentalist guys? Are you talking like Criss Angel and David Blaine? Those guys do some badass illusions, but they REALLY ARE just magicians at the end of the day. Lol, I'm so used to the constant mocking whenever I post in this thread that I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but if you are, then ya that would be pretty fuckin' funny lol. Ironic as fuck too lol. 


> Oh, and when you become rich and stuff, buy me a house and I'll introduce you to two of my friends that can take part in your controlled experiments that demonstrate the capabilities and physics of spirit and what not.


 When did I say that I was gunna get rich and conduct controlled experiments that demonstrate the capabilities of physics and the spirit??? That would be pretty fuckin' cool and all, but it's definitely not in the books as of right now anyways lol. Cept maybe the rich part. 


> Nah Im kiddin, not kiddin about my friends though. Stuff like this will become common knowledge in time, and it will be at just the right time it should happen, so be patient, Im not too worried about it, excited if anything.


 That was either a lame attempt at sarcasm.... or you were actually being serious. If you are actually being serious though, I would have to say that I agree with you 100% my man. I couldn't have said it better myself. 


> Peace my fellow bat-shit-crazy godly bastard.


 Am I your "fellow" bat-shit-crazy godly bastard?..... Or was that a botched attempt at an insult?.... I'm honestly having a hard time determining whether your being sarcastic or not....(probably because everyone else has been such a self righteous asshole). Anyhow, if you really were being serious about all that stuff, then I'd have to tell you that I appreciate the sentiment wholeheartedly, and I'm totally with you on everything you said homie. It's gunna take open minded people like us to actually bring about a change in this world. They'll come to terms with it all when it's right there in their faces, but until then, I guess it's just a burden of truth that a select few of us must carry.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 7, 2013)

It's simple. if you want your views to be heard, you'll have to refrain from personal abuse. That is all. Feel free to post attacks on atheism, or any other idea, but abusing other members will negate the post.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 7, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> This fucking atheist bastard thinks that HES god. Potroast will see this instance of mod corruption I promise you that.










Don't get all bent out of shape because you have ZERO evidence to support your beliefs and other people are pointing that out to you. If you have support for your beliefs show it, or shut the fuck up because us 'terrible atheists' are going to keep calling your bluff. 

You have nothing useful to say. So far it's been, "PEOPLE ARE BEING BIG MEANIES TO ME BECAUSE MY PUBLICLY STATED BELIEFS HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION.... WAAAAAHHHHHH." 

You can say 'souls exist' all you want, but we have a ton of evidence that supports other explanations. We can't show they don't exist for _*certain*_, but any justification you have for the existence of a soul can be more easily attributed to some natural phenomenon. Our personalities are a product of our brain, and so are our memories, and automatic functions like breathing, etc.,

What exactly does the soul do? Where is it? How do you know it's there? So far, you haven't listed any of its properties. Things that have no properties do not exist.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Nov 7, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Don't get all bent out of shape because you have ZERO evidence to support your beliefs and other people are pointing that out to you. If you have support for your beliefs show it, or shut the fuck up because us 'terrible atheists' are going to keep calling your bluff.
> 
> You have nothing useful to say. So far it's been, "PEOPLE ARE BEING BIG MEANIES TO ME BECAUSE MY PUBLICLY STATED BELIEFS HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION.... WAAAAAHHHHHH."
> 
> ...


For one thing, you didn't even read the comment that he erased..... it really had hardly anything at all to do with atheism or "existence". I was responding to skunkdoc's shit talking. I made it very clear to him and to everyone else, in that very post, that my discussion regarding atheism and "existence" was over and done with. So you can take your whole post and shove it, because your barking up the wrong tree.... again. Maybe you should know a little bit of what your talking about before you go into another misleading, positively affirmative rant. Do you even realize that your taking your own beliefs and labeling them as scientific fact??? Scientific OBSERVATION, is completely different from SCIENTIFIC FACT. Do you really not understand this, or is blatant disregard/ignorance merely a byproduct of your sadly egotistical brain? And btw, it really makes your argument sound that much more credible.... trust me. LMFAO! And how can someone have EVIDENCE to support an explanation??? If you really had evidence, wouldn't it support a FACT??? And you know what... I think I might actually take the time to gather up some so called "proof" for yall to bear witness to..... And of course, I already know that everything that I come up with will automatically be labeled as "non credible" because that is merely the nature of your collective ways. "If it makes us question our lack of belief.... then it will automatically be labeled as NON CREDIBLE!" Yall should put that shit in your footnotes. It's the perfect description of your thought processes. Don't count on me doing this any time soon though. I have a medical condition that pretty much controls my whole life, so the more that I stand here, the less and less I start to make sense, and yes I have to stand at my computer because the vertebrae in my neck are so compressed and out of alignment, that I can't even sit down and look downwards at a screen. So because of that, it only takes me a few hours before I end up exhausted and in excruciating pain, which in turn, affects the validity of the statements that I make. I'm sure you witnessed something similar during our last exchange. So because of all that, it will be quite a while before I embark on collecting some evidence for yall, but nonetheless I will, and I'll make another thread so we can discuss the issue there. And BTW, the comment where I derogatively called Heisenberg an atheist was because the man is on a fucking power trip, and I found it very ironic that an atheist would try to play god. Ironic, not surprising.... Oh, and I wasn't whining about anything but nice try.... I guess you guy's will hear from me when you hear from me.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 7, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> and haha.. it's fine that you guys "derailed" my thread. I liked the conversation that was going on. So for now on, you guys have my permission to crash hep's threads. Have fun, I'm gonna go find the new thread now.


what would a thread about theocracy be without a few zealots sticking their thumbs in their ears whining as they run around trying to smash as much as possible


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 7, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> For one thing, you didn't even read the comment that he erased..... it really had hardly anything at all to do with atheism or "existence". I was responding to skunkdoc's shit talking. I made it very clear to him and to everyone else, in that very post, that my discussion regarding atheism and "existence" was over and done with. So you can take your whole post and shove it, because your barking up the wrong tree.... again.


Yet here you are... lol



> Maybe you should know a little bit of what your talking about before you go into another misleading, positively affirmative rant.


I think you mean a positive affirmation? I'm not really sure what you mean by positively affirmative. Sorry.



> Do you even realize that your taking your own beliefs and labeling them as scientific fact??? Scientific OBSERVATION, is completely different from SCIENTIFIC FACT.


I'm not sure I should take you as an expert. You didn't know what empirical evidence or a scientific theory was, that doesn't exactly instill a sense of scientific expertise in a person. 

An observation is what forms a hypothesis. Then you test the hypothesis to either confirm or deny it. 



> Do you really not understand this, or is blatant disregard/ignorance merely a byproduct of your sadly egotistical brain? And btw, it really makes your argument sound that much more credible.... trust me. LMFAO! And how can someone have EVIDENCE to support an explanation???


'Explanation' and 'theory' can be used interchangeably in science. The theory or explanation of gravity can be demonstrated by dropping a pencil. The theory or explanation, of evolution can been demonstrated by watching new forms of resistant bacteria thrive when introduced to antibiotics. 



> If you really had evidence, wouldn't it support a FACT??? And you know what... I think I might actually take the time to gather up some so called "proof" for yall to bear witness to..... And of course, I already know that everything that I come up with will automatically be labeled as "non credible" because that is merely the nature of your collective ways.


It's not hard to come up with credible sources.



> "If it makes us question our lack of belief.... then it will automatically be labeled as NON CREDIBLE!"


That is complete bullshit. I'm open to new and compelling information, and I've changed my views on many things over the years when legitimate evidence has been presented. 



> Yall should put that shit in your footnotes. It's the perfect description of your thought processes.


I'm a pretty logical person. I'm not sure you can say the same thing, but we'll see I guess.



> Don't count on me doing this any time soon though. I have a medical condition that pretty much controls my whole life, so the more that I stand here, the less and less I start to make sense, and yes I have to stand at my computer because the vertebrae in my neck are so compressed and out of alignment, that I can't even sit down and look downwards at a screen. So because of that, it only takes me a few hours before I end up exhausted and in excruciating pain, which in turn, affects the validity of the statements that I make. I'm sure you witnessed something similar during our last exchange. So because of all that, it will be quite a while before I embark on collecting some evidence for yall, but nonetheless I will, and I'll make another thread so we can discuss the issue there.


Sorry about your condition, that sucks and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I'd like to see your evidence when you're ready to present it.



> And BTW, the comment where I derogatively called Heisenberg an atheist was because the man is on a fucking power trip, and I found it very ironic that an atheist would try to play god. Ironic, not surprising.... Oh, and I wasn't whining about anything but nice try.... I guess you guy's will hear from me when you hear from me.


He's not playing god, he deleted a post that explicitly broke the rules of the forum by using personal attacks.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Nov 7, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Yet here you are... lol


Yup, here I am responding to more of your horseshit, who woulda guessed.......


> I think you mean a positive affirmation? I'm not really sure what you mean by positively affirmative. Sorry.


Lmao, no I think you know exactly what I meant by that, but by all means, be petty and childish. Key in on my spelling and grammar all you want, it doesn't mean anything other than the fact that I've once again been standing here for way too long.


> I'm not sure I should take you as an expert. You didn't know what empirical evidence or a scientific theory was, that doesn't exactly instill a sense of scientific expertise in a person.


 Instead of questioning my credibility, why don't you just say what you're really thinking, which is: "your exactly right, even though I'll never admit to it." And I'm gunna go ahead and take a moment to clear this up since your obviously going to refer back to it whenever it's convenient for you. I knew what empirical meant before I had ever even stuck my foot in my mouth by making that remark to Tyler. After seeing him use the word on so many occasions, I decided, on a whim, to look it up so that I could double check it's definition. I did a quick google search, and this is the one sentence definition that I was given: 

*em·pir·i·cal 

adjective

adjective: empirical
*
*1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
*
By that definition, I concluded that my previous knowledge of what "empirical" meant had been wrong. When I read the definition that I was given, I assumed that "empirical" was a description of evidence based solely on observation. It was a simple mistake. I had already known what the word meant, but I thought that my initial knowledge of the word had been proven to be false. That's why I made that comment. Your right though, definitely "foot in mouth" on that one. As far as "scientific theory" is concerned, I wasn't saying that Tyler didn't know the definition of scientific theory. I simply felt that he was elaborating and expanding on it's actual definition, to which I've been familiar with since elementary school. I've never been remotely confused about what "scientific theory" means. Those are actually pretty good example of what I meant when I said that my condition can sometimes effect the validity of my statements. Not only had I already been going back and forth with you and Tyler for hours by that point, but at that time my legs were also swollen up like balloons, because wouldn't you know it..... I have a heart condition too. Other than my swollen legs, my heart condition plays no role in anything else, so let's just forget that I even mentioned it. So how about we put all of that pettiness to rest, what do you say?


> It's not hard to come up with credible sources.


I never said that it's hard to come up with a credible source. On the contrary, it's MORE than easy to come with a credible source. What I said was, that you nor any other atheist in this thread would ever consider ANY source that I reference, or ANY video that I post to be from a credible source. Tyler already gave a long list of sources that he automatically deemed to be non credible, don't you remember? I could post a video showing your own brother moving an object with his mind, and still you'd somehow claim the video to be non credible. That's just a fact homie, if you cant come to terms with that, then I would suggest taking a long honest look within, because your lying to yourself.


> That is complete bullshit. I'm open to new and compelling information, and I've changed my views on many things over the years when legitimate evidence has been presented.


Although this statement contradicts everything that I've come to know about you, I'll still play along. I notice how you threw, "compelling" information and "legitimate" evidence, in there to act as your fire escapes. The issue with that statement, is that the only legitimate evidence that would EVER be good enough for you, would be a live demonstration. And even after witnessing it your own eyes, you would still deny reality and it call it a "trick", even if you yourself could not debunk it as such. Whether you want to admit it or not, no evidence will EVER be good enough for you in regards to subjects that you deem to be impossible.


> I'm a pretty logical person. I'm not sure you can say the same thing, but we'll see I guess.


 I'm actually a very logical person, the only difference between us, is that YOU deem anything that isn't already written in a science book to be illogical. In your mind, it's UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to think that there are aspects of science that are yet to be understood.


> Sorry about your condition, that sucks and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I'd like to see your evidence when you're ready to present it.


 Sounds good, I just hope that you ACTUALLY have an open mind when going over what I have to present, instead of just saying that your open minded.


> He's not playing god, he deleted a post that explicitly broke the rules of the forum by using personal attacks.


But how would you know that? You didn't even read my post. For the first time in this thread, I went out of my way to explain myself in a cohesive scientific manner. I didn't personally attack skunkdoc, all I did was make a true statement about our last encounter. If it were still on the page, you'd be able to see for yourself. And regardless, all that he had to do was to erase that tiny little portion of that long ass post, just like all of the other mods do. That shit took me 15 minutes to type out. It was totally a personal attack on me. He didn't want my comments anywhere on his precious atheist thread. I take it that what I had to say, had him actually questioning his own beliefs in some way, and therefore he was going to make sure that NO ONE else ever read my statement. But whatever, I'm over it. Lol, I'm sure he's petitioning to get me banned as we speak, but hey, if I see people abusing their moderator privileges, I'm gunna let 'em know. Oh well though, I'm over it now..... I'm sure he's probably not though.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 7, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Which mentalist guys? Are you talking like Criss Angel and David Blaine? Those guys do some badass illusions, but they REALLY ARE just magicians at the end of the day. Lol, I'm so used to the constant mocking whenever I post in this thread that I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but if you are, then ya that would be pretty fuckin' funny lol. Ironic as fuck too lol.
> When did I say that I was gunna get rich and conduct controlled experiments that demonstrate the capabilities of physics and the spirit??? That would be pretty fuckin' cool and all, but it's definitely not in the books as of right now anyways lol. Cept maybe the rich part.  That was either a lame attempt at sarcasm.... or you were actually being serious. If you are actually being serious though, I would have to say that I agree with you 100% my man. I couldn't have said it better myself.  Am I your "fellow" bat-shit-crazy godly bastard?..... Or was that a botched attempt at an insult?.... I'm honestly having a hard time determining whether your being sarcastic or not....(probably because everyone else has been such a self righteous asshole). Anyhow, if you really were being serious about all that stuff, then I'd have to tell you that I appreciate the sentiment wholeheartedly, and I'm totally with you on everything you said homie. It's gunna take open minded people like us to actually bring about a change in this world. They'll come to terms with it all when it's right there in their faces, but until then, I guess it's just a burden of truth that a select few of us must carry.


Nah man, Im legit. Im infamous on this sub forum for my story of my two spiritual buddies. It was quite the spectacle when it was being told, even had Heis lash out at me unprovoked, they dont want this kinda shit spreading and poisoning other peoples minds with our nonsense lol. Most people have their mind made up when its comes to this stuff anyways. When arguing the credibility of these instances it pretty much comes down to a repetitive "Nuh uhh!" and "Yah huh!" kinda discussion that goes nowhere and getting emotional will just give all the more reason for the opposition to strut around victoriously with their peanut gallery hugging their nuts. You get used to it though, friendly discussions with skeptics are definitely possible on this subforum. Just gotta chill out man.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 7, 2013)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Nah man, Im legit. Im infamous on this sub forum for my story of my two spiritual buddies. It was quite the spectacle when it was being told, even had Heis lash out at me unprovoked, they dont want this kinda shit spreading and poisoning other peoples minds with our nonsense lol. Most people have their mind made up when its comes to this stuff anyways. When arguing the credibility of these instances it pretty much comes down to a repetitive "Nuh uhh!" and "Yah huh!" kinda discussion that goes nowhere and getting emotional will just give all the more reason for the opposition to strut around victoriously with their peanut gallery hugging their nuts. You get used to it though, friendly discussions with skeptics are definitely possible on this subforum. Just gotta chill out man.


The main difference being that the atheists on this forum wouldn't have any problem changing what they believed if the evidence were objective and verifiable. You, and the other members with similar stories have said right here in black and white that there's nothing that could possibly change your minds.

You say we're too "closed-minded" when we don't accept something like a youtube video as scientific evidence. We say if you base conclusions off a youtube video, you don't understand how science works or what "evidence" means.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 7, 2013)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The main difference being that the atheists on this forum wouldn't have any problem changing what they believed if the evidence were objective and verifiable. You, and the other members with similar stories have said right here in black and white that there's nothing that could possibly change your minds.
> 
> You say we're too "closed-minded" when we don't accept something like a youtube video as scientific evidence. We say if you base conclusions off a youtube video, you don't understand how science works or what "evidence" means.


Well the evidence is verifiable, if you had the means of meeting these people. Im not too concerned on objectivity because theres probably countless mysterious things about reality (some being experienced often by people) that are real yet are not objective knowledge because the gate keepers of objective knowledge have yet to verify the instances. You mention me being convinced of my experiences like its a bad thing. I remember explaining the details of just one experience to you and I asked you if you'd be convinced of telepathy if that were to happen to you, and you said yes. That was just one experience of many that differ in situation, environment, and circumstances, all bearing the same result. I dont need a group of scientists to point out whats already obvious to me. Fuck me, right? 

I understand your skepticism about youtube videos, I havent posted any to try and support my stories, and Im skeptical about those vidoes as Im only completely convinced on telepathy when it comes to those kind of abilities. Except that one video of that guy seemingly lighting paper on fire with his hands, I dont know what to think about that shit.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

Just because you experience something unexplainable, does not mean you can feel free to explain it subjectively. From what you explain you are just experiencing an experience that you cannot show others, or have them experience the same thing in a way that is easy to repeat and show everyone there is no room for doubt... no, 

_...you are merely giving your own subjective meaning to an experience without one. Then expecting others to take you seriously. _

This explains why everyone who has an unexplainable experience, directly attributes the experience to whatever spiritual definition they (at the present moment) are completely set upon. Be it christianity, buddhism, hinduism, or any other religion. 

Instead of leaving the experience as is... an experience that you cannot explain how, or why it happened, you feel the urge to give your own, personal, subjective meaning to the experience... changing it from what it was, into EXACTLY what you personally prefer it to be...

...which is EXACTLY what it is not.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Nov 8, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Just because you experience something unexplainable, does not mean you can feel free to explain it subjectively. For you are not just experiencing an experience that you cannot show others, or have them experience the same thing in way that is easy to repeat and show everyone... no, you are merely giving your own subjective meaning to an experience without one. Then expecting others to take you seriously.
> 
> This explains why everyone who has an unexplainable experience, directly attributes the experience to whatever spiritual definition they (at the present moment) are completely set upon. Be it christianity, buddhism, hinduism, or any other religion.
> 
> Instead of leaving the experience as is... an experience that you cannot explain how, or why it happened, you feel the urge to give your own, personal, subjective meaning to the experience... changing it from what it was, into EXACTLY what you personally prefer it to be.


Lol, do you ever make any sense??? I don't think the SS&P subforum is for you little guy. I think there's a children's subforum somewhere on here though..... Oh and I'm sure you wont be able to wrap your mind around this, but did ya ever think that maybe people AREN'T confused about what they've experienced. I could see someone attributing a near death experience to "god", but what about an actual physical or mental experience that they CAN fully explain, a phenomenon that HAS an actual name or topic, whether existing within the realms of science, sudo science, or the philosophical? Your whole post is based on the assumption, that no one can explain the experiences that they're having.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

You can explain it, the experience, i can explain the experiences i have had, the spiritual ones... what happened, what i felt, what it was like, what i saw, what i heard....

But what it was? Lol, it took me a long time to figure it out, to figure out that what i thought it was, was exactly that... what i thought it was. What i think it was is not what it is, merely a possibility of what it could have been. 

You do not understand my last post because you are in the mindset that you do know what it was, you have given the experience your own subjective definition, rather than leaving it at "I know what i felt, i know what it was like, i know what i saw, i know what i heard, but i am not quite so certain of what it REALLY was."

You make up your own definition, based merely upon the predisposed spiritual ideas you have, which you have borrowed, from others.

It's ok, i did that too for a while... until i became conscious of my own thoughts.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Nov 8, 2013)

Lol, no I understood your last post in it's entirety........ your just a little bit confused my friend. There's nothing subjective about an experience that CAN be fully explained, and that has an ACTUAL name. You've either experienced a specific type of phenomena, or you can't explain what you've experienced. It's one of the two. It's a ridiculous assumption to think that no one can put a name to what they've experienced. Just because someone has experienced something that YOU don't believe to be real or credible, doesn't mean that person is confused about said experience, leaving them guessing and speculating about what they've just experienced..... LMAO, I wonder how many more times I can fit the word experience into one post.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

You feel free to give any definition to any "spiritual/unexplainable" experience that you have, it is our god given right to do so... yet, all within the understanding... 

...that you (and i) may be wrong about the definition you or i give, the definition you or i give will always contain the possibility of being wrong, if you deny that, you deny yourself honesty.

To me, honesty with self, is the highest of all virtues.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 8, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Just because you experience something unexplainable, does not mean you can feel free to explain it subjectively. From what you explain you are just experiencing an experience that you cannot show others, or have them experience the same thing in a way that is easy to repeat and show everyone there is no room for doubt... no,
> 
> _...you are merely giving your own subjective meaning to an experience without one. Then expecting others to take you seriously. _
> 
> ...


Another trademark lecture from the Z. So its unexplainable just because science hasnt had the opportunity to explain it yet? I cant show others, but my friends can, in a way thats kinda easy (gotta develop a personal connection) and after that it can be repeated many times with different circumstances and controls every time and still get the same consistent result. I only have logical guesses as to how and why these experiences happen, my friends dont even fully understand them, what remains is that they DID happen. And it was established a long time ago that I dont expect you guys to believe me. I wouldnt believe a guy talking about his telekinetic friends in the same way I've been talking about my telepathic friends, I'd just be more open minded to the idea. Im just forced to keep on explaining and explaining because you guys come in and tell me why you are certain that I am mistaken rather than why you THINK Im mistaken. Im just trying to open you to the idea that these types of things could be happening to people in a consistent manner so they can observe whats happening from different perspectives, situations, and circumstances they are happening in thus learning about what is going on rather than explaining it away with what they want it to be like what you THINK is happening (Key word, THINK).

I find the last little bit of your worn out lecture to be a bit ignorant and closed minded. Theres no chance that some of your profound and unexplainable experiences can be attributed to what you think is happening? Thats what Im getting out of that. Also, isnt that how hypotheses and theories start? Hypotheses at least. A scientist observes something amazing and unexplainable and assigns a logical and scientific guess as to whats happening then puts his hypothesis through many different tests and if just one thing doesnt fit then its back to the drawing board. If a scientist had my experiences, should he just leave them alone and not try to figure out whats going on? No, he would investigate those experiences and figure out whats going on like I have. I think you keep repeating this to me because you dont think I investigated at all and just forced my own explanation on it right away. Thats not the case at all my friend. But of course, you only have my word that I put these experiences to the test. Like I said, this whole thing boils down to a "Nuh uhh" and "Yah huh!" type of discussion.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

I am not telling you that your own personal subjective definition of a spiritual experience is not right. I am merely trying to help you understand one simple thought, one simple conscious thought, and idea if you will, that maybe... JUST MAYBE... that definition could contain the possibility of being wrong. 

We have the god given right to think whatever the fuck we want about our experiences, but to not doubt them, is one of the most dishonest things you can do in your life. To not doubt, is to not think, and to not think, is to be dead inside. Do not imprison your imagination. Do not deny yourself an infinite amount of possibility in an existence where almost anything is possible... 

Do not be so arrogant to think your ideas are right, and everyone else who as a different idea is wrong. Treat all individual ideas the same, treat all individual thoughts the same, treat all individual experiences the same, treat them as they are, as they become. None are truth, they are just imagination manifest into retrospect. All do not, and cannot withstand the scrutiny of doubt. 

To doubt your ideas, thoughts and beliefs, is a natural part about being honest with ourselves. 

To entertain an idea without excepting it is honesty to it's fullest.






I am not, and will never tell you that you are certainly wrong about whatever belief that you have my friends, only that to deny the possibility that you could be wrong, is to deny honesty with yourself. To some people honesty with self is an easy sacrifice for comfort in an uncertain existence, and i don't blame them one bit.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Nov 8, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> You feel free to give any definition to any "spiritual/unexplainable" experience that you have, it is our god given right to do so... yet, all within the understanding...
> 
> ...that you (and i) may be wrong about the definition you or i give, the definition you or i give will always contain the possibility of being wrong, if you deny that, you deny yourself honesty.
> 
> To me, honesty with self, is the highest of all virtues.


Who's understanding? Your understanding? Lol. Here's a hypothetical. Let's say that your walking down the street one day, and some dude picks up a rock and throws it at you...... Ok, so when you get home and your replaying the incident in your head, is there going to be a thought in the back of your mind saying, "I might be wrong about what I've just experienced.... that guy might not have really thrown that rock at me....or..... that guy may have really been an angel........ and that rock that he threw at me may have actually been a diamond ring"............ No, you wouldn't think those things. Why? Because you KNOW exactly what you've just experienced. For people who have certain types of mental conditions, this may actually be valid concern. But as for the people who are sane and fully awake at the time of their experience...... the vast majority of the time, these people KNOW exactly what they've just experienced. They don't need to fill in the blanks or attribute their experience to something that's spiritual or divine in nature. Unless of course, their experience really was something spiritual or divine in nature....... Don't worry, you don't even have to say it, we already know that you don't believe in these types of things.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

There is a fine line between a physical experience, and a spiritual experience. Me feeling a rock hit me in the face, and feeling an overwhelming spiritual experience are in leagues of their own. I thought you were smart enough to understand the difference between physical, spiritual, and metaphysical, and exactly what i was talking about. 

Semantics makes a difference my friend. I guess my assumption that you knew the difference between them was a farcry.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

Let me reiterate, just in case you misinterpret what i was saying. All with the understanding that when i explain "experience" i am speaking of metaphysics, spiritual, and how we experience them sensually, and not of the physical. I am sure you of all people should be able to understand the separation between the physical and the spiritual. 







You feel free to give any definition to any "spiritual/unexplainable" experience that you have, it is our god given right to do so... yet, all within the understanding...

...that you (and i) may be wrong about the definition you or i give, the definition you or i give will always contain the possibility of being wrong, if you deny that, you deny yourself honesty.

To me, honesty with self, is the highest of all virtues. 

I am not telling you that your own personal subjective definition of a spiritual experience is not right. I am merely trying to help you understand one simple thought, one simple conscious thought, an idea if you will, that maybe... JUST MAYBE... that definition could contain the possibility of being wrong.

We have the god given right to think whatever the fuck we want about our (spiritual) experiences, but to not doubt them, is one of the most dishonest things you can do in your life. To not doubt, is to not think, and to not think, is to be dead inside. Do not imprison your imagination. Do not deny yourself an infinite amount of possibility in an existence where almost anything is possible...

Do not be so arrogant to think your ideas are right, and everyone else who as a different idea is wrong. Treat all individual ideas the same, treat all individual thoughts the same, treat all individual (spiritual) experiences the same, treat them as they are, as they become. None are truth, they are just imagination manifest into retrospect. All do not, and cannot withstand the scrutiny of doubt.

To doubt your ideas, thoughts and beliefs, is a natural part about being honest with ourselves.

To entertain an idea without excepting it is honesty to it's fullest."






I am not, and will never tell you that you are certainly wrong about whatever belief that you have my friends, only that to deny the possibility that you could be wrong, is to deny honesty with yourself. To some people honesty with self is an easy sacrifice for comfort in an uncertain existence, and i don't blame them one bit.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Nov 8, 2013)

The only thing that you've just reiterated, is that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. But I think we all picked up on that fact about 10 posts back.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> The only thing that you've just reiterated, is that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. But I think we all picked up on that fact about 10 posts back.


What i gather from this response, is one thing. That you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your beliefs contain the possibility of being wrong. 


I don't think this is bad or good, i think it just is. I think billions of people do it all the time, every day, about countless different things, ideas, beliefs... 

I just think it's the easy way, and i am jealous, because i wish i didn't have to doubt.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

Have you never once, ever, wondered, if what you think this is, reality, existence, belief... thought... might not be what you think it is?

If not... i wonder just how much of your imagination is already gone...


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 8, 2013)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Nah man, Im legit. Im infamous on this sub forum for my story of my two spiritual buddies. It was quite the spectacle when it was being told, even had Heis lash out at me unprovoked, they dont want this kinda shit spreading and poisoning other peoples minds with our nonsense lol. Most people have their mind made up when its comes to this stuff anyways. When arguing the credibility of these instances it pretty much comes down to a repetitive "Nuh uhh!" and "Yah huh!" kinda discussion that goes nowhere and getting emotional will just give all the more reason for the opposition to strut around victoriously with their peanut gallery hugging their nuts. You get used to it though, friendly discussions with skeptics are definitely possible on this subforum. Just gotta chill out man.


I have lashed out at you intellectually, but have I ever prevented you from giving your opinion? As far as I can remember you have never outright insulted people, and so I have never had to moderate your posts. You conduct yourself just fine. I don't agree with much of what you say, but I want this to be a place where you can say it. I can't garantee that it will be well received or that people wont agressively oppose it, but I can garantee that you are free to say whatever, as long as other members are not insulted or threatened.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Nov 8, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> What i gather from this response, is one thing. That you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your beliefs contain the possibility of being wrong.
> 
> 
> I don't think this is bad or good, i think it just is. I think billions of people do it all the time, every day, about countless different things, ideas, beliefs...
> ...





Zaehet Strife said:


> Have you never once, ever, wondered, if what you think this is, reality, existence, belief... thought... might not be what you think it is?
> 
> If not... i wonder just how much of your imagination is already gone...


You're flailin' bro..... Just give it up already.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> You're flailin' bro..... Just give it up already.


The denial of doubt. Expected. 

Yet i do not criticize your denial. 

As you criticize me for bringing it up.

Expected...

Regardless, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your beliefs contain the possibility of being wrong.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 8, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Yup, here I am responding to more of your horseshit, who woulda guessed.......


What bullshit? Prove me wrong. So far, all you've done is say "you're wrong, but you won't believe me if I show you how". *That*, friend, is bullshit. I don't believe scientists just because they're scientists, that's a logical fallacy. It's called an appeal to authority. *I believe scientists when they produce verifiable results under laboratory conditions that are repeated by other scientists who are attempting to falsify their work.*

A scientist making a youtube video of something miraculous without giving any explanation, and without giving his findings up to the vigours of peer-review will not make a believer out of any critical thinker. 



> Lmao, no I think you know exactly what I meant by that, but by all means, be petty and childish.


No I really don't. Positively affirmative makes no sense to me whatsoever. Sorry, not trying to be a dick. That's why I said did you mean an affirmation? 



> Key in on my spelling and grammar all you want, it doesn't mean anything other than the fact that I've once again been standing here for way too long.


Sorry?



> Instead of questioning my credibility, why don't you just say what you're really thinking, which is: "your exactly right, even though I'll never admit to it."


Unless you want to claim you're psychic or telepathic too, I don't now how you could possibly claim that. I most certainly DO NOT believe you are correct, and you have no evidence to support your claim regarding souls, or god. 



> And I'm gunna go ahead and take a moment to clear this up since your obviously going to refer back to it whenever it's convenient for you. I knew what empirical meant before I had ever even stuck my foot in my mouth by making that remark to Tyler. After seeing him use the word on so many occasions, I decided, on a whim, to look it up so that I could double check it's definition. I did a quick google search, and this is the one sentence definition that I was given:
> 
> *em·pir·i·cal
> 
> ...


Ok, it didn't seem like you knew what it meant before because you told him to look it up in the dictionary when he was using it correctly.



> By that definition, I concluded that my previous knowledge of what "empirical" meant had been wrong. When I read the definition that I was given, I assumed that "empirical" was a description of evidence based solely on observation. It was a simple mistake. I had already known what the word meant, but I thought that my initial knowledge of the word had been proven to be false. That's why I made that comment. Your right though, definitely "foot in mouth" on that one. As far as "scientific theory" is concerned, I wasn't saying that Tyler didn't know the definition of scientific theory. I simply felt that he was elaborating and expanding on it's actual definition, to which I've been familiar with since elementary school. I've never been remotely confused about what "scientific theory" means. Those are actually pretty good example of what I meant when I said that my condition can sometimes effect the validity of my statements.


Ok, I'll roll with you on this one. It just seemed like you didn't really know because you said *'all they have are theories'*, which would be alluding to the fact that theories don't have evidence, which *of course* they do.



> Not only had I already been going back and forth with you and Tyler for hours by that point, but at that time my legs were also swollen up like balloons, because wouldn't you know it..... I have a heart condition too. Other than my swollen legs, my heart condition plays no role in anything else, so let's just forget that I even mentioned it. So how about we put all of that pettiness to rest, what do you say?


Sure man, I ok with that. 



> I never said that it's hard to come up with a credible source. On the contrary, it's MORE than easy to come with a credible source. What I said was, that you nor any other atheist in this thread would ever consider ANY source that I reference, or ANY video that I post to be from a credible source.


Credible means verified. That's all. Some guy alone in his house claiming he can light paper on fire with his mind, but refusing to demonstrate his power anywhere _*but *_alone, and in his basement, *is not credible*. Anyone who can prove a soul exists, or that 'powers' or any other supernatural phenomenon exists, should be able to EASILY demonstrate their power under controlled conditions. 

Once all other options are eliminated, however unlikely, the only remaining option is correct. Meaning, if a guy claims to have psychic powers and can move objects, eliminate all other possibilities to confirm it. Make sure he's not using an external force, e.g. magnets, strings, wind, etc. this is done by changing the environment, and not allowing him to use his own props. Using glass in front of him would stop any projectiles from striking the objects he was attempting to move with his mind. Controls need to be used, in order to verify. Now, maybe some youtube videos *are* real, but we have no way of knowing and until it can be tested by eliminating other, more likely natural causes, the burden of proof has not been filled and belief is not justified.



> Tyler already gave a long list of sources that he automatically deemed to be non credible, don't you remember? I could post a video showing your own brother moving an object with his mind, and still you'd somehow claim the video to be non credible. That's just a fact homie, if you cant come to terms with that, then I would suggest taking a long honest look within, because your lying to yourself.


If a family member claimed they could move things with their mind I would put them behind a window, in a location they've never been to, and ask them to repeat the phenomenon. Done. So you're right, JUST a video wouldn't be enough to fill the burden of proof for me. Videos can be easily modified, and so can the areas where the video is filmed. There is too much at stake to believe a claim like telekinesis exists based solely on an untested claim from a video.



> Although this statement contradicts everything that I've come to know about you, I'll still play along. I notice how you threw, "compelling" information and "legitimate" evidence, in there to act as your fire escapes.


Do you accept uncompelling and illegitimate information as sources? I don't, sorry. I don't find David Blaine compelling, but he has lots of videos.



> The issue with that statement, is that the only legitimate evidence that would EVER be good enough for you, would be a live demonstration. And even after witnessing it your own eyes, you would still deny reality and it call it a "trick", even if you yourself could not debunk it as such.


This is complete hearsay, you have absolutely nothing to base that assertion off of, other than your opinion of me and you don't even know me. 

The scientific method works, man. Eliminate variables, be precise. Get accurate, consistent, verifiable, results. 




> Whether you want to admit it or not, no evidence will EVER be good enough for you in regards to subjects that you deem to be impossible.


I don't think anything is impossible, just very, very unlikely.



> I'm actually a very logical person, the only difference between us, is that YOU deem anything that isn't already written in a science book to be illogical.


I have a degree in Philosophy with a focus in logic. Please don't lecture me on what logic is, I'm well versed in truth-function and Aristotelian logic. Thanks.



> In your mind, it's UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to think that there are aspects of science that are yet to be understood.


That is completely inaccurate, and nothing more than an assertion. Unless of course, you're claiming to know my thoughts.



> Sounds good, I just hope that you ACTUALLY have an open mind when going over what I have to present, instead of just saying that your open minded.


I'm a critical thinker, I don't accept anything on face value just because it's said, or written. I need the burden of proof to be filled, and depending on the claim the burden of proof could be large or small. The bigger the claim, the bigger the burden. If you tell me you have 6 toes on one foot, a picture or video is fine; the consequences I face for holding the incorrect belief that you have 6 toes is small when compared to the consequence I face for holding the incorrect belief that souls, or psychic powers exist. Those ideas could drastically change the way I live my life, and a video or a picture isn't going to cut it. 

If a friend called you on the phone and said they cut their finger so they put a band aid on it, you'd probably believe them at face value.
If the same friend called and told you he had your daughter captive, you'd probably want some evidence. You might go look for your daughter, or ask to speak with her, etc.

To me, you're doing the equivalent of the 'band aid' call; "Believe me because I say so, but I have no way of proving anything to you."



> But how would you know that? You didn't even read my post. For the first time in this thread, I went out of my way to explain myself in a cohesive scientific manner. I didn't personally attack skunkdoc, all I did was make a true statement about our last encounter. If it were still on the page, you'd be able to see for yourself. And regardless, all that he had to do was to erase that tiny little portion of that long ass post, just like all of the other mods do. That shit took me 15 minutes to type out. It was totally a personal attack on me. He didn't want my comments anywhere on his precious atheist thread. I take it that what I had to say, had him actually questioning his own beliefs in some way, and therefore he was going to make sure that NO ONE else ever read my statement. But whatever, I'm over it. Lol, I'm sure he's petitioning to get me banned as we speak, but hey, if I see people abusing their moderator privileges, I'm gunna let 'em know. Oh well though, I'm over it now..... I'm sure he's probably not though.


He said there were personal attacks in the post, those are against the forum rules. Are you surprised that using personal attacks against another member, even when they're in a long post, gets your post deleted? 

I've had two? of my posts deleted because I got personal. Refrain from personal attacks and it's all good. 

Heis simply deleted a post that was violating the site rules, pretty sure he didn't lose any sleep over it.


----------



## SeniorFrostyKush (Nov 8, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> What bullshit? Prove me wrong. So far, all you've done is say "you're wrong, but you won't believe me if I show you how". *That*, friend, is bullshit. I don't believe scientists just because they're scientists, that's a logical fallacy. It's called an appeal to authority. *I believe scientists when they produce verifiable results under laboratory conditions that are repeated by other scientists who are attempting to falsify their work.*
> 
> A scientist making a youtube video of something miraculous without giving any explanation, and without giving his findings up to the vigours of peer-review will not make a believer out of any critical thinker.
> 
> ...


Lol, that was pretty long post, and yet you've managed to say absolutely nothing at all. Now who's struggling? Lmfao! It's funny though, you still talk as if I give a shit what you think, or as if I'm under the impression that something that I say or do is gunna change your viewpoints on reality. LOL JOKE!!! I've never said this before to anyone, but I think you've just taken the cake as THE most arrogant AND ignorant person I've ever spoken with. YOU HIT THE 2 FOR 1 BRO, CONGRADULATIONS!!! But hey, at least a lifetime's worth of "rational" ignorance has gotten you something other than an inflated ego..... I wonder when you'll actually figure out that there's more to life than science..... I'm guessing never, because science IS your god AND your whole sense of reality, all wrapped up into one. No wonder you covet it like it's your newborn child. LOL..... I'm not even gunna dignify the rest of that babble with a response. You've said it all before, over and over and over again. There come's a point in life where willful ignorance turns into sheer stupidity, and I think you crossed that threshold long ago my friend. Until next time.......


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 8, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> Lol, that was pretty long post, and yet you've managed to say absolutely nothing at all. Now who's struggling? Lmfao!


Your critique is that I 'said nothing'. I gave you examples of credible sources, with reasoning as to why they're credible. I corrected your assertions about my ideologies and beliefs, because you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, and I gave you the exact requirements needed to fill *my *burden of proof for belief. You attacked my sense of logic, and I defended myself and cited my reasons for defending myself. I said a lot. 
*
You *on the other hand, said absolutely nothing in _this _post other than unfounded assertions about my beliefs, and some ad hominem attacks about my ego and intelligence. The fact that you _don't give a shit what I think_ is* the very definition of close minded.* It's hypocrisy at its finest, let's continue through the rest of your post with that in mind.



> It's funny though, you still talk as if I give a shit what you think, or as if I'm under the impression that something that I say or do is gunna change your viewpoints on reality. LOL JOKE!!! I've never said this before to anyone, but I think you've just taken the cake as THE most arrogant AND ignorant person I've ever spoken with.


I'm arrogant because I require evidence before formulating a belief? Or I'm arrogant for thinking that everyone should require some form of evidence before formulating beliefs? You're just saying shit, without any reference to what I've said. You do that a lot. How am I ignorant? Based upon what I've said about my beliefs, I find it hard to believe you can accurately label me as ignorant. Care to elaborate? Or is it just a case of nothing valid or reasonable to say, so you just try to discredit me? 
*
New flash*, discrediting the other person doesn't make your argument stronger. It's the adult equivalent of yelling, "Well you're a poopy pants! Neener neener!" on the playground as a kid, when someone said something you didn't like.



> YOU HIT THE 2 FOR 1 BRO, CONGRADULATIONS!!! But hey, at least a lifetime's worth of "rational" ignorance has gotten you something other than an inflated ego..... I wonder when you'll actually figure out that there's more to life than science.....


There's way more to life than science, when did I say otherwise? You love strawman arguments, (in other words you argue against things I never said). Science is the best tool we have for determining the nature of the world. That's what I believe, and it's demonstrable. You're typing on a computer, using the internet, taking prescription meds, and seeing Dr.'s trained in using the scientific method..... need I say more. You're still not saying anything worth listening to, just more insults because you have nothing valid to say about the topic at hand.



> I'm guessing never, because science IS your god AND your whole sense of reality, all wrapped up into one. No wonder you covet it like it's your newborn child.


I don't have a god. That's ridiculous. Science isn't infallible like gods claim to be, but it is self correcting which makes it leaps and bounds ahead of any religion that sticks to a specific, unchanging dogma.



> LOL..... I'm not even gunna dignify the rest of that babble with a response. You've said it all before, over and over and over again. There come's a point in life where willful ignorance turns into sheer stupidity, and I think you crossed that threshold long ago my friend. Until next time.......


You still haven't said anything other that you think I'm stupid. You've given no counter argument to anything I've said, other than trying to assassinate my character because you don't like me/my arguments. It's not my fault you can't argue your own beliefs. If you have something that's worth writing, I'd love to hear it. If it's just more insults, don't bother.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 8, 2013)

SeniorFrostyKush said:


> It's funny though, you still talk as if I give a shit what you think, or as if I'm under the impression that something that I say or do is gunna change your viewpoints on reality.


Then why in the fuck... are you even trying to discuss ideas in a philosophy forum?

This is a place for clean debate, to share ideas, to learn from each other, to make an attempt at empathizing with others ideas about reality. To share our ideas about reality. To have enough courage to endure the scrutiny of our ideas from other people all around the world without taking offense, to really listen, and produce a valid response. To have fun and get to know each other.


Really, what in the fuck are you even doing here then? To call people names and bring them down when your ideas are questioned rather than provide us with a valid explanation? 




What in the fuck are we doing here???


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

Here is some advice. Stop being a fuckin dick and get the fuck off of this forum if you aren't going to listen to others ideas and put people down when they question yours. Stop wasting the time of those on here who actually care about what other people think, and care about who people are as individuals.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 8, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> I have lashed out at you intellectually, but have I ever prevented you from giving your opinion? As far as I can remember you have never outright insulted people, and so I have never had to moderate your posts. You conduct yourself just fine. I don't agree with much of what you say, but I want this to be a place where you can say it. I can't garantee that it will be well received or that people wont agressively oppose it, but I can garantee that you are free to say whatever, as long as other members are not insulted or threatened.


I never said you got in the way of my freedom of speech.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Nov 8, 2013)

That is Z, and the "Joke or reference" is my last post to him. Completely failed to address anything I had to say.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 8, 2013)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I never said you got in the way of my freedom of speech.


Right. I was sort of asking your opinion. While lashing out at you did you feel I also used mod privileges to suppress you. I guess you answered all the same.


----------



## Indicakat (Nov 9, 2013)

Good one Heisenberg, pretty good way to get to the right of free speech, damn what a wonderful thing we do have! I might not believe in God, yet it was a great eye opener to see how I was not alone, yet to see how others felt! Wonderfully debated conversation on organized religion and athiesm, high powers, etc.... I learned a lot, even downloaded the book, 

'The Bible Fraud' by Tony Bushby to my iPad which has made me feel better about the way I feel. I have not finished yet because I have had a rough week due to cheno, I could barely get out of bed to take care of my plants, so I'll definitely be posting on newbie central, I'm grateful to Limegreen and Sunking, by using only 4 seedlings in dwc and adding to soilless dirt mixture which I added azomite to fit trace minerals and used thrive alive and root for transplanting into coco, sorry got off topic. 



Heisenberg said:


> Right. I was sort of asking your opinion. While lashing out at you did you feel I also used mod privileges to suppress you. I guess you answered all the same.


 "I respect this board because I have even said previously, "I'm sorry, I feel like I took your thread and feelings away, Hephaestus420, it was just so refreshing to see someone else, felt the same way I did. I felt guilty also, as you did with your family, it's always nice to know that you are not alone, and it has given me more insight into religion. I know Buddhism is really not a religion, but I relate to it the most for right now, and I appreciate that people here are open to others views and thoughts, even if they do not agree with them, they have a right, as we all do, thank you, first amendment for free speech!" I never felt like my first amendment right was under attack, I thought it was a good debate about Christianity, which really opened my eyes, especially Beef Bisquit, hydrogreen, I'm sorry, I feel like I took your thread and feelings away, *Hephaestus420*, it was just so refreshing to see someone else, felt the same way I did. I felt guilty also, as you did with your family, it's always nice to know that you are not alone, and it has given me more insight into religion. I know Buddhism is really not a religion, but I relate to it the most for right now, and I appreciate that people here are open to others views and thoughts, even if they do not agree with them, they have a right, as we all do, thank you, first amendment for free speech!" Quote from myself.

* Hephaestus420*, *BeefBiscuit* , and others as well, gave me many mind opening links and information to further to continue my decision to be an atheist, just like President Obama said according to climate change, I believe in Science. I tried to read the bible and could not even get past God' s sons Cane and Able were like about 800 years old, and quotes about talking snakes, why would he make one person that was blind and the rest stay blind?
I believe that believing in God or some kind of power gives a person false hope, if you look at many polls taken on if a person believes in Christianity, it seems like the person with higher education or higher iq's, believe in science, and I do believe as others have said, they really do not believe in God, but they say they do because they do not want to get condoned, outcasted, or giving a ton of grief because of their beliefs. They are afraid as another member had quoted earlier. That is why I like this forum, because I never felt attacked, I felt like we were all given a chance to speak our opinions, and I was given good advice. 

"To me, honesty with self, is the highest of all virtues.", was written by *Zaeth* *Strife*, I read a quote that I believe is the truth, To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny." Quote by Joseph Addison. Like *Hephaestus420* said, it just gives people a sense of false hope, and another quoted, don't follow the light, you will run over by a train. I did like Stephen Hawking explain the reason why he is an atheist, even though after hearing it I find fit hard to explain, but it made absolute sense at the time. 
Believe me, when I found out I was sick, I did pray to all god's, but felt stupid doing so, it was against everything I stood for, but felt pressured by my family to do so, as many others do. But I feel so much better given the threads I read I was not alone.

One thing I did find out is there are some incredibly intelligent people here and I'm glad I chose to hang in there and cc Dobbs, thank you again for your concern, being sick is a lot harder in dwc, requires a lot of work, and all I want was good medication until I am finished with chemo, sorry, just lied, although it helps greatly, I will continue the almighty herb, sick or not! So sorry to go off topic!
So I stand firm in my choice of being an atheist, and glad others I am not alone, and I am so happy to have found a board and hung in there being a newbie idiot, I have gained so much valuable information, regardless being sick, atheism, and learning to grow indoors, etc, and will keep coming back to learn more, got a great group here, I'm grateful to be accepted into this forum!

"To me, honesty with self, is the highest of all virtues." I read a quote that I believe is the truth, To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny." Quote by Joseph Addison. 

"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfuly as when they do it for religious convictions" 
-- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

"Hey, let's get serious... God knows what he's doin' He wrote this book here And the book says: 'He made us all to be just like Him', So... If we're dumb... Then God is dumb... (And maybe even a little ugly on the side)" 
- -Frank Zappa

Happy growing to all, hope you all have great weekends!


----------



## MojoRison (Nov 9, 2013)




----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 9, 2013)

Great post Kat, thank you for sharing, keep comin back my man... i bet you got something in that brain to offer all of us. Impressed. 

Still waiting to see an agnostic theist here other than Eye.

I never read that quote by Joseph Adams, i thought i made that shit up! lol.


----------



## Organic Toker (Nov 9, 2013)

I don't wanna hurt anyone's feelings or beliefs, am just saying my mind.

Born in a land where they worship everything and thousands of gods to chose from; I believe there is no Allah, Jesus or Raam. But I do believe that there is a force which is beyond our wildest imaginations. I also believe in karma, do good get good. 

I have been studying science all my life and the more I studied, I began thinking there is one- The creator, the greatest artist. 

I don't believe in any man written books about god, nor do I worship a stone or a photograph. Did someone see jesus/ram and painted their pictures? Lol 

Worshipping a living thing- a tree which gives you fruit and the cow that gives you milk is totally fine (atleast its also from the same place) but worshipping a piece of paper, stone..and we call ourselves rationalists,scientists and whatnot!

Everyone has the right to believe in something and live their life that's why there are religions. A grip to hold on, those who dont need it will never need it.

A great man from India,Kerala called Sree Narayana Guru once fixed a mirror and asked people to worship it. The god we all are searching for is inside us, in our actions, in our words.

I also believe there's something larger than life, afterall energy can neither be created, nor destroyed but can be changed from one form to another. 

All that I have been through, fuck I must have been a very bad man in my last life. When the so called real life ends, if my energy is clean..I might become a much loved plant with THC in my flowers  if not i'll again be born to suffer for the bad things I have done..

Hope somebody understands me...

Peace and Love,

Toker.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 9, 2013)

"The experts say critical thinking is fundamental to, if not essential for, 'a rational and democratic society.' What might the experts mean by this? Well, how wise would democracy be if people abandoned critical thinking? Imagine an electorate that *cared not for the facts*, that *did not wish to consider the pros and cons *of the issues, or if they did, *had not the brain power to do so*. Imagine your life and the lives of your friends and family placed in the hands of juries and judges who *let their biases and stereotypes govern their decisions*, who *do not attend to the evidence*, who *are not interested in reasoned inquiry*, who *do not know how to draw an inference or evaluate one.*" - Peter A. Facione


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 10, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> "The experts say critical thinking is fundamental to, if not essential for, 'a rational and democratic society.' What might the experts mean by this? Well, how wise would democracy be if people abandoned critical thinking? Imagine an electorate that *cared not for the facts*, that *did not wish to consider the pros and cons *of the issues, or if they did, *had not the brain power to do so*. Imagine your life and the lives of your friends and family placed in the hands of juries and judges who *let their biases and stereotypes govern their decisions*, who *do not attend to the evidence*, who *are not interested in reasoned inquiry*, who *do not know how to draw an inference or evaluate one.*" - Peter A. Facione


In the world which he describes, I wouldn't be able to tolerate most people or their society's irrationalities, and I would spend most of my time in my house alone. Wait...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 10, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> In the world which he describes, I wouldn't be able to tolerate most people or their society's irrationalities, and I would spend most of my time in my house alone. Wait...


Delicious!


----------



## Indicakat (Nov 11, 2013)

SeniorFrostyBud, clear your private message inbox, it's full, I wanted to pm you but it will not let me your inbox is full, sorry to go off topic, this thread has proven to me that their are some very intelligent members with a lot of great insight, now I am more confused as ever about religion! I will stand by my dislike of organized religion through, it seems only to serve in its own self interest. Reading posts and seeing different posts by several members that I have high impressions of their different opinions and insights, just wants to make me delve further into learning. Like I have said in the past, I was brought up an atheist as my grandparents had raised me. Then my mom got custody of me at 14 under false pretensions she was sober, she was a major drug shopper, who had me at the age of 14 going with her faking migraines to get her drugs, yet kept her rosemary beads with her at all times, forced me into a Catholic School, where I was shunned and felt like an outcast because I had never even seen a bible in my life. I believe that had a huge impact on my life against my belief system. This is a wonderful thread, I have gained knowledge. As they say, keep what you want and throw out the rest. It has made me think a lot about religion and hope and faith. Please keep posting, all information has to have a source. And Zahaet Strife, just like I said, you put the quote about religion, you must have picked it up somewhere or you and the other dude have similar minds, by the way, I'm a chick, but you can call me dude, I have no idea why, all guys seem to call chicks dudes now, lol!


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 11, 2013)

No worries Kitty Kat, you are a pretty cool dudette yourself. Thank you for sharing your ideas with us, it means a lot.


----------



## Indicakat (Nov 12, 2013)

I like that, you guys can call me kat or kitty kat, Zaehet Strife, you have made very interesting points, my husband laughed his ass off at the kitty kat, he loved it, by the way there are too many Indicas out there, so I like the uniqueness of not naming myself after a strain or type of marijuana. Pretty cool my dude!


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 12, 2013)

When my girlfriend saw that she punched me in the shoulder, she said i can only call HER Kitty Kat, "puuuurrrrr" lol!


----------



## Indicakat (Nov 13, 2013)

That's funny, but being with an unfaithful husband Zaeth, I have to take your girlfriend's side, after all I have gone through, if my husband called another girl kitty kat, I would punch him too! You can just call me Kat! Lol, your girl seems like a stand up girl who I would like, tell her I'm on her side, but still think your pretty awesome with great ideas.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 13, 2013)

I was an athiest.

Until I realised athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.

I simply accept that human beings are fallible. We do not - and never will - have the capacity to understand that which is beyond our grasp.

Anyone who worships a god would not recognise it if they saw it.

Anyone who does not worship a god would not recognise it if they saw it.

But there is one idea with which I am fairly comfortable: if there is a creator - or creators - they would be nothing like anything any religion has ever devised nor ever will.

Gods are created in the minds of men. If it were the other way around, we wouldn't be so fucking naive . . .


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 13, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> I was an athiest.
> 
> Until I realised athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.
> 
> ...



Hey man, haven't seen you post here before so, welcome!

Now into the 'meat and taters'....


You're incorrect about atheism, maybe I can help clear things up.

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. If someone wants to go a step further and say 'I believe god doesn't exist', that is not the position of atheism, it's a separate claim - one of knowledge, not belief.

People often confuse 'a lack of belief', and 'a belief that something doesn't exist'. They are very distinct, and shouldn't be confused. A belief that 'something doesn't exist' is a positive claim, and should be justified. An example of how *lack of a belief* differs from *the belief that something does not exist*, is a baby; they are atheists because they don't know about the existence of god, therefore; t*hey have no belief in god. *They are a - (without) theist - (theism), or *without theism (atheist). 
*
Anyone who states 'god does not exist' or 'I believe god doesn't exist', is making a positive claim, and in a public forum people are going to expect evidence or reasoning as to why you hold that belief. When you make a claim,* the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not on the person rejecting the claim.*

Simply *not having a belief* is different, because you're responding to the positive claim that theists are making, that* 'god exists'*. Therefore, atheism isn't a claim in and of itself only a response to a claim.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 13, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. If someone wants to go a step further and say 'I believe god doesn't exist', that is not the position of atheism, it's a separate claim - one of knowledge, not belief. Two more very distinct things.


I'm sorry if to me it sounds a little more like semantics . . .

I believe God does not exist.

I do not believe God exists.

One is positive (believe), the other negative (do not believe), but they actually mean the same thing.

If you have no beliefs, ipso facto, you do not believe.

The child in your example may not be schooled in any particular religion, but that doesn't stop him or her believing that - for example - their mother is god. After all, she created the child, feeds, nurtures, controls and protects. She is the child's world and the centre of its universe. Until it starts thinking for itself . . .

Someone in this thread has already stated that: "Nothing is still something." Non-belief is still a belief. You have no beliefs because you CHOOSE not to have any beliefs. That is active, not passive.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 13, 2013)

Are Buddhists "theists"? Buddha isn't a god . . .

Are Buddhists "athiests"? They believe in divine teachings . . .


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 13, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> I'm sorry if to me it sounds a little more like semantics . . .
> 
> I believe God does not exist.
> 
> ...


Completely wrong.

If I believe someone is not guilty, that doesn't mean I believe they are innocent. It means the prosecution failed to produce enough evidence to convince me of guilt without a reasonable doubt. 

Saying "I don't believe in God" is not the same as saying "I believe no gods exist"


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 13, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> I'm sorry if to me it sounds a little more like semantics . . .
> 
> I believe God does not exist.
> 
> ...


I agree except for the part about them being the same thing. That doesn't make sense to me. 



> The child in your example may not be schooled in any particular religion, but that doesn't stop him or her believing that - for example - their mother is god. After all, she created the child, feeds, nurtures, controls and protects. She is the child's world and the centre of its universe. Until it starts thinking for itself . . .


There's a difference between 'god' and mom. The concept of 'god' has to be taught, there is no innate 'god knowledge'. So, babies couldn't assign the label of god to their mother unless they were taught about the concept of god in the first place. Once you are informed about the concept of god, you can formulate an opinion on the validity of the claim and either believe or not believe.

But going one step further than atheism, an atheist can be a gnostic atheist and claim to know that god doesn't exist, but gnostic atheists are few and far between. Gnostic theists on the other hand, are the most common form of theists, in that they claim to know for certain god exists. 



> Someone in this thread has already stated that: "Nothing is still something." Non-belief is still a belief. You have no beliefs because you CHOOSE not to have any beliefs. That is active, not passive.


Non-belief is *not *a belief. It's the absence of a belief. 

Anyone who doesn't have a belief in god, including babies and people who have never encountered the concept of god, are atheists. It doesn't mean they hold the belief that 'god does not exist', and their non-belief in a god cannot be a belief itself because the concept is completely foreign to them.

It's like saying non-apples are still apples. Well, no. I'm sorry, but they're not. lol


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Completely wrong.
> 
> If I believe someone is not guilty, that doesn't mean I believe they are innocent. It means the prosecution failed to produce enough evidence to convince me of guilt without a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Saying "I don't believe in God" is not the same as saying "I believe no gods exist"


Have a think about what you just wrote. If you believe someone is not innocent of a crime, then that is what you believe. It has nothing to do with the legal definition of the word "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" (a conditional term).

Any juror in any democratic legal system can believe someone is guilty of a crime and still aquit them (for whatever reason) - which frequently happens. Their verdict has nothing - nothing - to do with what they may truly believe. They are simply following the letter of the law - or not - regardless of their actual beliefs.

I may truly believe you're a nice guy. But that doesn't stop me saying or doing bad things to you, does it? And vice-versa.

Beliefs are beliefs - no matter what a person articulates.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> There's a difference between 'god' and mom. The concept of 'god' has to be taught, there is no innate 'god knowledge'.


The concept of YOUR god - or perhaps someone else's - may need to be taught (in scriptures, for example), but how do civilisations as a whole come up with those concepts in the first place?

Aha!

The concept of "god" - ruler, protector, creator, arbiter, whatever - is innate in every living thing. Every living thing looks up to something else that influences its existence.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In the land of the simple, the unexplained is God.




BeefbisquitNon-belief is [B said:


> not [/B]a belief. It's the absence of a belief.


Absence of anything makes as much sense as nothing being nothing. Which conceptually (to our simple brains) cannot be quantified, let alone imagined.

Try to think of "nothing" right now. You can't do it.

When you have no beliefs, you have a belief: it is your belief in the absence of beliefs.



Beefbisquit said:


> It's like saying non-apples are still apples. Well, no. I'm sorry, but they're not. lol


This gets to the very "core" (sorry!) of philosophy. A non-apple may still be an apple - because an apple cannot exist without a non-apple. Otherwise it is nothing. It's not an apple. It's not a non-apple. So it must be the same thing, right?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 14, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Have a think about what you just wrote. If you believe someone is not innocent of a crime, then that is what you believe. It has nothing to do with the legal definition of the word "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" (a conditional term).
> 
> Any juror in any democratic legal system can believe someone is guilty of a crime and still aquit them (for whatever reason) - which frequently happens. Their verdict has nothing - nothing - to do with what they may truly believe. They are simply following the letter of the law - or not - regardless of their actual beliefs.
> 
> ...


How/why would a juror believe someone is guilty and still acquit them for their crime? It is the job of the prosecutor to present enough valid evidence for condemnation. 

I'm having a hard time understanding your point..


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

OJ Simpson. I rest my case.


----------



## skunkd0c (Nov 14, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> I'm sorry if to me it sounds a little more like semantics . . .
> 
> I believe God does not exist.
> 
> ...


This is as far as i have got 

I do not know if god exists 
if god does exist it will be significant to me
I do not wish to worship any supernatural beings in exchange for immortality
If god does exist i wish to negotiate a new deal for myself that does not involve subordination and worship 
If god is a Pink Unicorn that is ok with me as i am not prejudice.

Peace


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

You may find if "God" exists, s/he/it will be so far advanced - so incomprehensible to all of us - that s/he/it will impose absolutely no human conditions on you or your "soul" at all. Because "God" is not human, and therefore not subject to the same failings, beliefs or conceptual processes that we are bound by.

Anthropomorphism is the practice of humanising things that are not human. This includes deities.

"God" does not judge. "God" does not get angry or vengeful. "God" does not get jealous. "God" has no pride. "God" is omnipotent, and therefore knows what we all will do - and why we will do it - before we are even born. If there is a "God", then we are nothing. We are certainly in no position to question or assert anything in relation to any omnipotent being and/or its existance.

"God" - by the very definition of the word - must be so far removed from the human condition and our simple concepts of existance that we couldn't even begin to understand what s/he/it has planned for us. If there is a plan at all . . .


----------



## skunkd0c (Nov 14, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> You may find if "God" exists, s/he/it will be so far advanced - so incomprehensible to all of us - that s/he/it will impose absolutely no human conditions on you or your "soul" at all. Because "God" is not human, and therefore not subject to the same failings, beliefs or conceptual processes that we are bound by.
> 
> Anthropomorphism is the practice of humanising things that are not human. This includes deities.
> 
> ...


I am free to judge anything based on my own set of values
i can use these values to judge a god, not sure why you think this is not possible.

a god by definition could do anything of its choosing so if it wanted to experience the human condition it could 
if it wanted to judge it could

the god you imagine seems not very "godlike" if they are unable to do the things you state


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

You are basing your concept of "god" on your own limited human thinking. You are anthropomorphising.

What makes you think "God" "chooses" anything? Choice is a human concept. "God" can be all things at once . . . and nothing at all. "God" does not need to make choices.

I do not imagine "God" because "God" is unimaginable.

You are indeed free to believe anything you want. That is part of the human condition. But that is all it is. Your beliefs bare no more resemblance to reality than the human concept of reality itself.

"God" by its very definition is the god of human definition. Subject to the limitations of the human condition. And therefore, not very godlike at all . . .


----------



## skunkd0c (Nov 14, 2013)

what other concept of god is possible, other than a human concept ?

I am stating that if a god requires people to be subordinate or worship i am not interested in that deal

you seem certain this is not a possible outcome, how is it possible for you to rule this out ?
since god can do all things at once why are you placing limitations on god 

you seem to be suggesting that god is incapable of doing things that humans can imagine..


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 14, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> The concept of YOUR god - or perhaps someone else's - may need to be taught (in scriptures, for example), but how do civilisations as a whole come up with those concepts in the first place?
> 
> Aha!
> 
> ...


People came up with god as a way to attempt to explain the natural world around them. They had no concept of science, and for all they knew the sun was an entity that nurtured and warmed them. It made sense to attribute things in nature to what they could conceptualize. Limiting our understanding of the universe to what we can conceive without using science, is a logical fallacy, or an argument from ignorance. Early people just didn't know what logic was.





> Absence of anything makes as much sense as nothing being nothing. Which conceptually (to our simple brains) cannot be quantified, let alone imagined.


Your ability to imagine something has nothing to do with that object existing in reality. Can you imagine what the 10th dimension looks like? I bet you can't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before the big bang, there was no 'space'. What does 'no space' look like? It's the epitome of 'nothing'. Can you imagine it? I can't, but that doesn't affect whether or not 'lack of space' is a real thing.



> Try to think of "nothing" right now. You can't do it.


What I can imagine, and what actually exists, or existed at one point is irrelevant. The bounds of the universe are not limited by my imagination.



> When you have no beliefs, you have a belief: it is your belief in the absence of beliefs.


This is demonstrably not true. Pad already gave this example; if a court rules someone as not-guilty they are NOT saying the person is INNOCENT. NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT are two very distinct things, just like non-belief and belief, are very distinct separate things. Stating otherwise does not make it so.



> This gets to the very "core" (sorry!) of philosophy. A non-apple may still be an apple - because an apple cannot exist without a non-apple. Otherwise it is nothing. It's not an apple. It's not a non-apple. So it must be the same thing, right?


That's not true. A non-apple by definition, is not an apple. You are basically attempting to create a 'married bachelor'. It's an impossible contradiction, and calling a non-apple an apple is the same concept. You're saying 'there are apples that aren't apples', which doesn't logically follow.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

skunkd0c said:


> what other concept of god is possible, other than a human concept ?


Exactly. You've nailed it. "God" is a concept, and is therefore limited to the minds of those who conceptualise.

Now, if you were open to believe humans are not the only form of "intelligent" life in the universe, would another being's concept of "God" be any less valid than ours?

Would those beings be our "Gods"? Are we "Gods" to lesser life forms?

Are you quite certain humans are the only forms of life that conceptualise?

My definition of "God" may be very different to yours, but is still limited by my condition. So who's definition is right? By limiting yourself to preconceived ideas of what "God is", is your "God" not limited in and of itself?



skunkd0c said:


> I am stating that if a god requires people to be subordinate or worship i am not interested in that deal
> 
> you seem certain this is not a possible outcome, how is it possible for you to rule this out ?
> since god can do all things at once why are you placing limitations on god


Do you wish for lower life forms to worship you? Subordination is - again - a lower form of conceptualisation.

The concept of a "God" that I would be open to conceptualising would be a much higher life form with absolutely no use for us at all - let alone with the preoccupation of subornination.

I do not rule it out. But I perceive it to be more unlikely than likely. If humans have taught themselves anything, it is that more highly evolved beings - more intelligent people - are more likely to be opposed to subornination and other forms of slavery or worship.



skunkd0c said:


> you seem to be suggesting that god is incapable of doing things that humans can imagine..


Not quite. I am suggesting that an omnipotent "God" is way beyond the realms of our imagination to the point that, even if "God" _did_ do something we can imagine, it may likely be for reasons we cannot imagine - and therefore what we are "imagining" bears no resemblance to what may actually be happening.

In simple terms, it may be like a sacrificial chess move that draws the scorn of those who cannot imagine where it would lead . . . until check-mate is complete. Even then, those witnessing may still not understand what exactly just happened.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> People came up with god as a way to attempt to explain the natural world around them.


Can a child not do the same? Do children not have imaginary friends and simplistic explanations for the things that happen around them?

What about lesser life forms?

I opened the door to a cabin last year and startled a snake. I closed the door. The door had a window. I observed the snake turn around and strike out at a nearby trash can. The snake was reacting to what it thought was a threat. In its limited capacity, it attacked an object that had nothing to do with anything. It did not understand what had just happened, yet formed a cognitive reaction to the situation.

The snake conceptualised in its most basic form.

True story.



Beefbisquit said:


> Your ability to imagine something has nothing to do with that object existing in reality.


Most certainly it does. If you weren't observing it, would it actually exist?

Some theories of quantum physics extrapolate just that: objects only exist if they are observed.

You think, therefore you are. So what are you if you cannot think?



Beefbisquit said:


> Can you imagine what the 10th dimension looks like? I bet you can't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before the big bang, there was no 'space'. What does 'no space' look like? It's the epitome of 'nothing'. Can you imagine it? I can't, but that doesn't affect whether or not 'lack of space' is a real thing.


Putting aside the fact that this is not a new concept - space-time is ever-expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light (according to people much smarter than you and I) - you have just conceptualised the very things you said you couldn't!

What I am saying is, you can't even imagine the things your are trying to imagine. "10th dimension" is just a phrase.



Beefbisquit said:


> What I can imagine, and what actually exists, or existed at one point is irrelevant. The bounds of the universe are not limited by my imagination.


Exactly what I've been saying all along. 



Beefbisquit said:


> This is demonstrably not true. Pad already gave this example; if a court rules someone as not-guilty they are NOT saying the person is INNOCENT. NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT are two very distinct things, just like non-belief and belief, are very distinct separate things. Stating otherwise does not make it so.


Nothing is "demonstrably not true". This is where the failings of the human condition - your conditioning - cloud the issue.

You are arguing legal definitions - not concepts. What have legal definition got to do with beliefs?

Have any of you actually been inside a court room and observed what happens there? Do you still want to argue that some jurors acquit those they believe are guilty and vice versa for their own personal reasons?

Many people act in direct contradiction to their beliefs. It is very common. To argue otherwise is fallacious in the extreme.



Beefbisquit said:


> That's not true. A non-apple by definition, is not an apple. You are basically attempting to create a 'married bachelor'. It's an impossible contradiction, and calling a non-apple an apple is the same concept. You're saying 'there are apples that aren't apples', which doesn't logically follow.


If everything in the word was an apple. If the world itself was an apple. If the universe was an apple. If it's creator was an apple. What would an apple be? It would be a non-apple - because it would be the same as everything else! In the same way that the concept of nothing is, in fact, something.

This is precisely what I mean about limited understanding. You must take a concept to its enth degree to fully extrapolate it. Human beings are incapable of doing this. You only see what is in your own limited world: apples, jurors, whatever. You cannot think outside that.

And it is for that very reason that you cannot see that non-belief is and of itself a belief.

Right now you are arguing a non-belief. So what exactly are you arguing if not something you believe?


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

Let me put it another way . . .

If you do not believe in your non-belief, what exactly is the argument?

That you believe that non-belief is not a belief . . . purely because that's what you believe?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 14, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Let me put it another way . . .
> 
> If you do not believe in your non-belief, what exactly is the argument?
> 
> That you believe that non-belief is not a belief . . . purely because that's what you believe?


This is why I stopped arguing with these sorts of people.. 

You can talk your way in circles all you want, buddy..


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 14, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> People came up with god as a way to attempt to explain the natural world around them. They had no concept of science, and for all they knew the sun was an entity that nurtured and warmed them. It made sense to attribute things in nature to what they could conceptualize. Limiting our understanding of the universe to what we can conceive without using science, is a logical fallacy, or an argument from ignorance. Early people just didn't know what logic was.


People might have been limited in the scientific sense of logic. Through the uninhibited imagination people were able to 'draw' a God so as to draw near to 'it'. To me it would seem that this was a portal to communication with something of an absolute abstract mind. Whoa, sounds tough.

So as people began to understand this communication, others were able to decipher patterns which began to lead to a more logical perspective.

Kind of like this - let's say you experience something like coincidence or déja-vu. The 'other half' of the phenomenon has a life of its own, it was just 'there' for you. So, from where does that other life originate? What put it there for your meaningful experience to happen? Chance? What is chance is this instance? How could 'chance' 'contain' the _elements_ needed for your matter-based experience?

Fck


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

Padawanbater2 said:


> This is why I stopped arguing with these sorts of people.


You mean people with logical, coherent arguments?

I can understand why you wouldn't want to engage with such people.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> Kind of like this - let's say you experience something like coincidence or déja-vu. The 'other half' of the phenomenon has a life of its own, it was just 'there' for you. So, from where does that other life originate? What put it there for your meaningful experience to happen?


There is a theory that space-time is like a pack of cards, or pages in a book. Each "page" is an infintisimal "slice" of space-time arranged in a particular order, along a time line, like a book - which is why time only seems to travel in one direction.

However, what if somehow those pages or cards in the deck got shuffled in the wrong order? Would we see our future before it happens? That little slice of space-time - that "page" of reality - was somehow inserted into our current time-line but was so brief - as brief as the briefest measure of space-time we can imagine - that we failed to notice until we reached the correct "page".

And then we remember: "Hang on, hasn't this happened before?" 

Yes it has.



eye exaggerate said:


> Chance? What is chance is this instance? How could 'chance' 'contain' the _elements_ needed for your matter-based experience?
> 
> Fck


This is a very interesting argument. I would argue there is no such thing as chance.

Why? Because given infinite time and infinite space, there are infinite possibilities. And if there are infinite possibilities, then sooner or later a pattern must develop. Some might say the odds - or chance - of such an event are 50/50. It either happens or it doesn't (two choices). But if there is no such thing as chance, then in fact it becomes a certainty.

The infinite paradox is that everything is possible - even the possibility of possibilities being finite. In which case, not everything would be possible . . .


----------



## skunkd0c (Nov 14, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Exactly. You've nailed it. "God" is a concept, and is therefore limited to the minds of those who conceptualise.
> 
> Now, if you were open to believe humans are not the only form of "intelligent" life in the universe, would another being's concept of "God" be any less valid than ours?
> 
> ...



You seem to be saying the same thing over and over, maybe i am missing your point 

"gods power is limited to my imagination"
"i am unable to judge god because i am human"
"gods power is unlimited" 

these positions are contradictory

i originally made some IF statements this means that if the given events take place and are true the next statement will follow and so on

i do not understand how you are able to dismiss them since you have already stated in other words that gods power is unrestricted
this would make any human imagined event involving god possible and any IF statement valid 

you listed things that god can't be or can't do "god can't feel loneliness" 

you seem to be saying god could not recreate the concept of human loneliness, or that god is unable to do things humans can do

i do not believe gods power is dependent on my human imagination

This sounds like something a christian would say, " Humans can't judge the actions of the christian bible god because they do not understand the grand plan for us all" sacrificing the few for the sake of the many is ok so to speak 

i can imagine an alien coming to earth and shooting you with its ray-gun decapitating you 
i have made you look like Brad Pitt in my imagination , i hope this is ok 

although i do not believe it is likely this will happen, this bears no influence on it actually happening or not
my imagination as far as i am aware does not govern what is possible in the multiverse 

if the said alien were to kill you for no apparent reason not even for a food source, perhaps just for sport
i would use my humanbeing concept of all things, to judge this event, i am sure i would conclude that the alien
is not very nice for killing you

are you stating that i am unable to make this decision because myself and the alien hold different concepts ?

peace


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

skunkd0c said:


> You seem to be saying the same thing over and over, maybe i am missing your point
> 
> "gods power is limited to my imagination"
> "i am unable to judge god because i am human"
> ...


Er, I didn't actually say any of that if you read what I've written. But, you know . . .



skunkd0c said:


> i have made you look like Brad Pitt in my imagination , i hope this is ok


Oh, of course - we can both agree on this 



skunkd0c said:


> although i do not believe it is likely this will happen, this bears no influence on it actually happening or not
> my imagination as far as i am aware does not govern what is possible in the multiverse
> 
> if the said alien were to kill you for no apparent reason not even for a food source, perhaps just for sport
> ...


You need to think a little beyond all that. It is part of your condition that you can imagine all those things but can't - in your mind - apply them to your current reality. Just as it is part of your condition that you can't imagine something beyond that. That is part of the limitation we all have.

Or it may not be. It would truly be something if mankind continued to evolve into his own definition of "God".

In some aspects we have. What would ancient man have thought of us returning from space in our capsules and behaving in all our advanced technological glory?



skunkd0c said:


> You seem to be saying the same thing over and over, maybe i am missing your point


I am saying the same thing for the most part, and you do appear to be missing the point: 

All your arguments are constrained to human-conditioned thinking relative to the only reference you have - your present awareness - which basically means none of us know what the fuck we are talking about, let alone have any iota of an idea of what Life, the Universe and Everything truly means - if anything at all.

^ Do you understand that bit? It's really got fuck-all to do with "God" and everything to do with ourselves.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

I'm high as fuck. The reality is . . . reality is there to be altered.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 14, 2013)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How/why would a juror believe someone is guilty and still acquit them for their crime? It is the job of the prosecutor to present enough valid evidence for condemnation.
> 
> I'm having a hard time understanding your point..


Jury nullification. If I was ever on a jury involving a marijuana crime I would find them not guilty. Not because they are not guilty in the eyes of the law, but simply because I disagree with the law and don't think it should be illegal in the first place and I refuse to convict someone using an unjust law.

Or some dude who was 18 years old banging his 17 year 364 day old gf who he ends up marrying. Technically in some states that is rape and is punishable with prison time. I would refuse to convict in that situation on the same principle. 

I don't agree with anything prawn connery says, he seems to be off his rocker. Also I read all his posts in sean connerys voice. I just wanted to introduce you to the concept of jury nullification.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 14, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> You mean people with logical, coherent arguments?
> 
> I can understand why you wouldn't want to engage with such people.



I think he means people with no concept of epistemology and who feel entitled to limit the world based on their own personal mussing. 

There are only two positions available on the existence of god. Belief or non belief, theism or atheism. Anyone who does not subscribe to theistic ideas is an atheist. Atheism only requires a lack of belief, and that belief can be lacking for any reason: ignorance, rebellion, logic, apathy, ect. Only a very small subset of atheists go on to also claim god doesn't/can't exist. You are choosing to define a whole group of people by that small minority, and leaving no room for people like me who have not been convinced of any god, yet still consider the possibility that evidence is out there and we just haven't found it yet. I don't believe, yet I don't claim a God doesn't/can't exist. Since I have no evidence or knowledge that God can't exist, saying he doesn't would require a leap of faith. I do not posses that faith, yet you are trying to box (people like) me into a position that requires it.

I have seen no evidence of the Lock Ness monster, yet I do not know that he isn't real. He could be down there. So while I do not believe, I also do not claim its nonexistence. It would not be fair for someone else to pigeonhole me into taking the position that Nessie can't be real just so they can feel they understand the world. That would not reflect my feelings and it would not reflect the state of the world. 

Atheism has meant lack of belief as far back as 1772 when Paul Henri Holbach wrote: "All children are atheists, they have no idea of God." This statement only makes sense if the term "atheism" includes a passive sense which does not mean the explicit denial of the existence of any gods. A hundred years later, we see atheism is still meant to mean lack of belief when Charles Bradlaugh wrote in 1876: "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God, but he says 'I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The word God to me is a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."

So we see atheism has always meant "without belief" while not requiring the positive claim that there is no God. You seem to be redefining it to fit your own simplistic view of the world, and resisting with specious reasoning when corrected. If you insist on redefining words and then having the world subscribe to the redefinition, and refuse any appeal, then some people feel talking to you is a waste of time, which is what I believe Pad meant. What's next? Will you redefine "up" to mean "sideways", "poison" to mean "zero"? Redefining words and expecting others to argue against the redefinition is no different than rewriting history and expecting people to argue against that.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 14, 2013)

I have seen no evidence of the lock ness monster either. No one has, and they have been searching for a long time. I cannot claim with certainty that it does not exist, but if I was a betting man I would place high odds that it does not exist.

I think the same thing of god. I have no proof one way or another, but it seems like the default position should be denying his existence. I am open to the possibility that there may be a god, but I highly highly doubt it.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 14, 2013)

guy incognito said:


> I have seen no evidence of the lock ness monster either. No one has, and they have been searching for a long time. I cannot claim with certainty that it does not exist, but if I was a betting man I would place high odds that it does not exist.
> 
> I think the same thing of god. I have no proof one way or another, but it seems like the default position should be denying his existence. I am open to the possibility that there may be a god, but I highly highly doubt it.


Yes, but according to Prawn Connery you don't actually think this way. You actually say that God does not and cannot exist, because that is the only alternative to believing he does. If you feel he has not left room for your view, then he will play an intellectual shell game of redefining words to show that he knows your views better than you. Rather than expanding his view of the world, he would limit yours.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 14, 2013)

I understand (and disagree with) what prawn is saying. I was just adding my 2 cents to the mix. If I had to classify myself as either having a lack of belief in god, or an active belief that he does not exist it would be the latter.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 14, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Can a child not do the same? Do children not have imaginary friends and simplistic explanations for the things that happen around them?
> 
> What about lesser life forms?
> 
> ...


This is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with belief or non-belief, and belief in the absence of something, and a lack of belief are STILL distinct things.




> Most certainly it does. If you weren't observing it, would it actually exist?
> 
> Some theories of quantum physics extrapolate just that: objects only exist if they are observed.


If no one in the world was looking at the moon, it wouldn't cease to exist. I don't feel like you're being very intellectually honest in this discussion.



> You think, therefore you are. So what are you if you cannot think?


Then you're dead, but your body still exists or at least existed at one point. What does this have to do with belief or non-belief?




> Putting aside the fact that this is not a new concept - space-time is ever-expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light (according to people much smarter than you and I) - you have just conceptualised the very things you said you couldn't!
> 
> What I am saying is, you can't even imagine the things your are trying to imagine. "10th dimension" is just a phrase.


The human mind is limited, I agree. Try to think of a new colour that you've never seen before.



> Exactly what I've been saying all along.


You're trying to say that your imagination has an impact on the things *in *the world, and I disagree. 

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick




> Nothing is "demonstrably not true". This is where the failings of the human condition - your conditioning - cloud the issue.


TONS of things are demonstrably not true. Are you being serious, or are you trolling? This type of comment makes me wonder. I can use a light meter to measure the nm frequency of light, and tell you what colours it ISN'T. If you said 'the gravity on earth makes things fly towards the sky', I could demonstrate how that is *not true* by dropping an object.



> You are arguing legal definitions - not concepts. What have legal definition got to do with beliefs?


I'm trying to show you how non-belief and not-guilty are not the same as belief, or innocent. You don't seem to be grasping this concept.



> Have any of you actually been inside a court room and observed what happens there? Do you still want to argue that some jurors acquit those they believe are guilty and vice versa for their own personal reasons?


This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. The crown (government) has never found a person innocent in its existence. It has only failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove someone guilty. Likewise, people who do not have a belief in god do not necessarily believe god doesn't exist, only that they haven't seen the required evidence to form a belief. 



> Many people act in direct contradiction to their beliefs. It is very common. To argue otherwise is fallacious in the extreme.


It's called cognitive dissonance.



> If everything in the word was an apple. If the world itself was an apple. If the universe was an apple. If it's creator was an apple. What would an apple be? It would be a non-apple - because it would be the same as everything else! In the same way that the concept of nothing is, in fact, something.


What the hell are you talking about? We would completely derail the entire concept of language if we were to do that. It's silly to even waste time pondering it. Language only works if there are rules to it, how would calling everything *an apple,* facilitate the passing of knowledge from one person to another? It's ridiculous. 

If we called everything an apple, an apple would no longer mean the same thing, but the actually physical object that we know as an apple would still exist (as an apple no less, as everything would be an apple) Non-apples wouldn't exist. Pointless.



> This is precisely what I mean about limited understanding. You must take a concept to its enth degree to fully extrapolate it. Human beings are incapable of doing this. You only see what is in your own limited world: apples, jurors, whatever. You cannot think outside that.
> 
> And it is for that very reason that you cannot see that non-belief is and of itself a belief.
> 
> Right now you are arguing a non-belief. So what exactly are you arguing if not something you believe?


I actually *do* believe that god doesn't exist. I'm arguing that atheisms default position is one of non-belief, not one of an active belief that god doesn't exist. Any atheist who has that belief, is formulating that belief outside of atheism. 

You talk about limited understanding, but you're human too. This is a common tactic perpetuated by theists, that they have some higher understanding of existence because of some wishy-washy, pseudo-metaphysics. 





> Let me put it another way . . .
> 
> 
> If you do not believe in your non-belief, what exactly is the argument?That you believe that non-belief is not a belief . . . purely because that's what you believe?


The argument is simple. Belief and non-belief are distinct. Not having a belief is not the same as belief that something doesn't exist. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Let's just break this statement down further;



> Human beings are incapable of doing this. You only see what is in your own limited world: apples, jurors, whatever. You cannot think outside that.
> 
> And it is for that very reason that you cannot see that non-belief is and of itself a belief.


I understand the English language quite well, and this, is a non-sequitur. How does it logically follow that because humans can only respond to reality within the limits of their own perception that someone who doesn't have a belief in something, actually believes in that something? It doesn't logically follow whatsoever, and if you're not going to use logic to formulate the basis for your arguments, then we cannot continue this discussion.

I don't have to 'believe' that non-belief isn't the same as belief, they are different fucking words with different definitions. If you want to change the definitions of words to suit your argument you're being intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 14, 2013)

Excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica;



> Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who *rejects belief* in God for the following reasons: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist *rejects belief* in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> I think he means people with no concept of epistemology and who feel entitled to limit the world based on their own personal mussing.


I'm sure you would need to provide the correct definition of the misconcept of epistemology in the first place to apply it rightfully, wouldn't you? If indeed you could prove your defintion is any more valid than anyone else's.

How is my theory on the innate concept of God or relative omniscience any less provable than your cut-and-paste views below? What original thinking have you brought to the debate?



Heisenberg said:


> There are only two positions available on the existence of god. Belief or non belief, theism or atheism. Anyone who does not subscribe to theistic ideas is an atheist. Atheism only requires a lack of belief, and that belief can be lacking for any reason: ignorance, rebellion, logic, apathy, ect. Only a very small subset of atheists go on to also claim god doesn't/can't exist. You are choosing to define a whole group of people by that small minority, and leaving no room for people like me who have not been convinced of any god, yet still consider the possibility that evidence is out there and we just haven't found it yet. I don't believe, yet I don't claim a God doesn't/can't exist. Since I have no evidence or knowledge that God can't exist, saying he doesn't would require a leap of faith. I do not posses that faith, yet you are trying to box (people like) me into a position that requires it.


There are more than two positions. Your definition of "atheism", for example, sounds a lot like agnosticism. Perhaps you don't know the difference?

Perhaps, due to your conditioned state and sense of false superiority, there are no provisions for views outside your own based on the established norm. But why limit your argument to what others have simply said before you? Why not branch out?

Let's dispense with childish notions about Lock Ness monsters and "simplistic views of the world". I think such arguments are below people who clearly left immature analogies about supersticion and belief behind long ago. Let's focus on your adherence to the "musings" (good word, that) of your quotable friends below: 



Heisenberg said:


> Atheism has meant lack of belief as far back as 1772 when Paul Henri Holbach wrote: "All children are atheists, they have no idea of God." This statement only makes sense if the term "atheism" includes a passive sense which does not mean the explicit denial of the existence of any gods. A hundred years later, we see atheism is still meant to mean lack of belief when Charles Bradlaugh wrote in 1876: "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God, but he says 'I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The word God to me is a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."


There are basically two premises here - two different concepts.

Firstly, that children "have no idea of God". That statement is very easy to contextualise in reference to the religious views of the late 18th century and the explicit notion that "God" is the god of Christianity or some other mainstream religion.

Is that what Holbach was referring to? And if so, does that not limit his theory to mainstream views and concepts while ignoring the very idea of an innate belief in "the almighty" or an omnipotent being that has absolutely nothing to do with religious doctrine at all?

Have you even thought about that?

Secondly, Bradlaugh's (this time 19th Century) assertion that: "I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."

This is very close to what I have been saying. And it's interesting, because it was coined only a few years after the term "agnosticism" was first introduced by Huxley to the wider world to define his own philosophy - which is quite different to that of the theist or even athiest (though obviously some people - such as yourself - can't tell the difference).

Seen in that context, is Bradlaugh still talking about "athiesm"? Is he refering to a "lack of belief" or, in fact, doubts over the afirmation of such beliefs? And again, is his statement not in the context of some form of mainstream religion? That "Standard God", if you will?

If making allowances - as you have above - for only two sides of a debate is not "limited" - as you seem to be referring to my own position - then I'm not quite sure what is!



Heisenberg said:


> So we see atheism has always meant "without belief" while not requiring the positive claim that there is no God. You seem to be redefining it to fit your own simplistic view of the world, and resisting with specious reasoning when corrected. If you insist on redefining words and then having the world subscribe to the redefinition, and refuse any appeal, then some people feel talking to you is a waste of time, which is what I believe Pad meant. What's next? Will you redefine "up" to mean "sideways", "poison" to mean "zero"? Redefining words and expecting others to argue against the redefinition is no different than rewriting history and expecting people to argue against that.


Can words not be redefined? I'm a "gay" chap - how about you?

Honestly, please try to give us a flash of something a little more exclusive . . .


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

guy incognito said:


> I understand (and disagree with) what prawn is saying. I was just adding my 2 cents to the mix. If I had to classify myself as either having a lack of belief in god, or an active belief that he does not exist it would be the latter.


Both are active beliefs. A lack of belief is a cognitive action in the same way that apathy is a cognitive action. Both are consious (possibly even sub-concious) decisions. But both require actions.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 14, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Likewise, people who do not have a belief in god do not necessarily believe god doesn't exist, only that they haven't seen the required evidence to form a belief.


Is that athiesm? Are you sure?



Beefbisqui said:


> What the hell are you talking about? We would completely derail the entire concept of language if we were to do that. It's silly to even waste time pondering it. Language only works if there are rules to it, how would calling everything *an apple,* facilitate the passing of knowledge from one person to another? It's ridiculous.
> 
> If we called everything an apple, an apple would no longer mean the same thing, but the actually physical object that we know as an apple would still exist (as an apple no less, as everything would be an apple) Non-apples wouldn't exist. Pointless.


I'm not talking about language at all. You simply don't get it. That's OK. You're right. Pointless.

Same as your take on "I think therefore I am". Sorry, but do you even know what that is supposed to represent?

And yes, "Encyclopaedia Britannica". Very good . . .



> or a nonanthropomorphic God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers


. . . except there is no such thing as a "nonanthropomorphic God". If humans define it, by its very definition it is anthropomorphic.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 14, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> I think he means people with no concept of epistemology and who feel entitled to limit the world based on their own personal mussing.
> 
> There are only two positions available on the existence of god. Belief or non belief, theism or atheism. Anyone who does not subscribe to theistic ideas is an atheist. Atheism only requires a lack of belief, and that belief can be lacking for any reason: ignorance, rebellion, logic, apathy, ect. Only a very small subset of atheists go on to also claim god doesn't/can't exist. You are choosing to define a whole group of people by that small minority, and leaving no room for people like me who have not been convinced of any god, yet still consider the possibility that evidence is out there and we just haven't found it yet. I don't believe, yet I don't claim a God doesn't/can't exist. Since I have no evidence or knowledge that God can't exist, saying he doesn't would require a leap of faith. I do not posses that faith, yet you are trying to box (people like) me into a position that requires it.
> 
> ...


I agree. We are in a philosophy forum. When trying to define a word, we must use the correct definition of that word in order to communicate with others exactly what we are trying to say. 

The word atheist, is by definition, a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. 

Again, this does not mean the atheist holds onto the belief that god or gods certainly do not exist, it is merely a statement of "Nah, not enough evidence for me as an individual to prove to myself that god or gods do not exist, not enough evidence to prove that they do either, so ill stick with my previous notion, that i do not believe in something that has not been proven to me."

The correct word you are searching for Prawn would be a "strong atheist". If you want to use the word, to describe an atheist who believes with certainty that there is no god.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 15, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> How is my theory on the innate concept of God or relative omniscience any less provable than your cut-and-paste views below? What original thinking have you brought to the debate?


I did not claim to bring original thought, but remedial corrections. Your statement was:



> *Until I realised athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.*


Demonstrating your misunderstanding was all I intended to do.




> There are more than two positions. Your definition of "atheism", for example, sounds a lot like agnosticism. Perhaps you don't know the difference?


Agnosticism is about knowledge, I was speaking of belief. There are only two positions possible, belief or non-belief. If you are not with belief, then you are without, just as if you are not with money you are without.



> Perhaps, due to your conditioned state and sense of false superiority, there are no provisions for views outside your own based on the established norm. But why limit your argument to what others have simply said before you? Why not branch out?


Aside from the subtle ad hominem, I have no need to branch out. If we can't use the accepted definition of words, or agree on new usage, further musings are pointless.



> Let's dispense with childish notions about Lock Ness monsters and "simplistic views of the world". I think such arguments are below people who clearly left immature analogies about supersticion and belief behind long ago. Let's focus on your adherence to the "musings" (good word, that) of your quotable friends below:


There was no argument. It was an example meant to demonstrate my point. You've apparently contorted it into a "childish argument" in your mind in order to justify pushing it away.




> There are basically two premises here - two different concepts.
> 
> Firstly, that children "have no idea of God". That statement is very easy to contextualise in reference to the religious views of the late 18th century and the explicit notion that "God" is the god of Christianity or some other mainstream religion.
> 
> ...


It's clear what was being said. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge. That is why a person can be atheist and agnostic, theist and gnostic, or anywhere along the spectrum. Simply knowing someone is agnostic tells you nothing about what they belief. A person can say they have no knowledge of God what-so-ever, yet they believe on faith or feeling. Likewise, knowing someone is gnostic tells you nothing about what they believe. I am with knowledge, but does that knowledge prove to me God's existence or his non-existence? In order to tell, you need to also know if I am theist or atheist.



> If making allowances - as you have above - for only two sides of a debate is not "limited" - as you seem to be referring to my own position - then I'm not quite sure what is!


I do not demand anyone choose or accept any label, I am simply providing the correct description of terms. We are not talking about a debate, we are talking about your statement:



> *Until I realised athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.*


There seems to be no debate here, your quote is pretty definite, and demonstrably wrong.





> Honestly, please try to give us a flash of something a little more exclusive . . .


Belittlement and mental masturbation to the point of Gish galloping seem to be your only tools.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 15, 2013)

Honestly. I was wondering when the epithets would begin. And you don't see the hypocrisy at all, do you? "Mental masturbation to the point of Gish galloping" - very alliterative! But hardly an observation.

I'll dispense with the lazy cut-and-paste dissection argument that you all seem to employ by simply suggesting that you are not "with knowledge" until you understand that knowledge itself is in a state of flux - and inherently hinges on the theory (and general acceptance) of the time. Which, as human history attests, is ephemeral.

All theories stand to be disproved. All knowledge is a product of our current state. There is no such thing as "true" knowledge, because there is no such thing as "true" anything: everything is a perception.

The same applies to language. Which is why it evolves and will continue to evolve no matter how you may cling to it.

If athiesm is about belief, and agnosticism about knowledge, then where does the "belief" in your "knowledge" fit in? You write as if belief and knowledge are seperable.

Are they?

Accepting you don't have the knowledge to base a particular belief on anything requires a belief in and of itself.

I certainly expect you to recant this with a bit of . . Kant. But that's all I can expect, as you have stated that your "belief" in your "knowledge" is not only irrefutable, but should form the basis of all underdstanding. You have made no provision for the aspects of existance that fall outside that "spectra" of human knowledge, and do not seem to be prepared to acknowledge we are fallible by our very make-up!

By dismissing the existance of god through whatever means - active non-belief, the (spurrious) denial of belief, or simple contortions of what you claim to be accepted defintions of the word itself - you are dismissing everything you don't know, and failing to open yourself to ideas that may fly in the face of your learned (outdated - much of what we do learn soon becomes outdated) behaviour.

I will stand by my statement:



> *athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.*


Your arguments are uncannily similar (think about it). You both put your belief in something - even lack of belief. You really need to understand the concept that "belief" is at the core of human existance: if you "believe" this reality, if you "believe" in your existance, if you "believe" in the knowledge of your fellow man, then everything you think or do is based either on belief, or on innate (genetic) reflex.

Furthermore, I believe (there's that word again) that part of the human condition is having an innate belief in an omnipotent force - whatever form that takes at whatever stage in life you are at.

You believe you are superior to me. I believe I am superior to you. There is a heirarchy of omnipotence in the human condition limited only by a lack of omnipotence itself!

I mean, who made you God?


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 15, 2013)

Can I ask: Are you "The Glacier" because you are cold? Or because you move slowly?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 15, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Is that athiesm? Are you sure?
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about language at all. You simply don't get it. That's OK. You're right. Pointless.
> ...


Lol - yes, I've studied Descartes rather extensively, thanks! 



> And yes, "Encyclopaedia Britannica". Very good . . .


Yes, facts are good. Established definitions are good, too. They allow rational people to continue on their discourse.



> . . . except there is no such thing as a "nonanthropomorphic God". If humans define it, by its very definition it is anthropomorphic.


An anthropomorphic god would mean giving human like qualities to god, maybe instead of sneering and telling people they don't know about philosophy (when they have a degree in Phil. no less, LOL) and you should start reading about pantheism and Spinoza. Thanks!


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 15, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Can I ask: Are you "The Glacier" because you are cold? Or because you move slowly?


We gave him that title because an RIU member so aptly put it, "Arguing with Heisenberg is like boxing a glacier!" Just a little inside joke...


----------



## MojoRison (Nov 15, 2013)

I find the concepts created by man maddening.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 15, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> We gave him that title because an RIU member so aptly put it, "Arguing with Heisenberg is like boxing a glacier!" Just a little inside joke...


Ah. "Mental masturbation" . . . "circle jerk" . . . I get it now.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 15, 2013)

Here ya go connery.. pulled from google since none of the other explanations are getting to you.

atheist.. "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"

Not sure exactly what "disbelieves" means? well here you go again.. "be unable to believe (someone or something)."

read the definition of atheist 10 times.. 50 times.. 100 times, until you get it into your head. It _should_ make sense by the 100th time. 

*athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.
- connery

*how does this fit the atheist definition? Maybe I shouldn't get into this since others have already tried and failed, not because they're wrong.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 15, 2013)

atheism is a lack of belief. Saying "I believe god doesn't exist" is a belief. 

definition of belief.. "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." "trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something."

in order to say god doesn't exist, you'd have to have faith, trust, and confidence that he doesn't exist since there's no evidence to back that claim. This fits the definition of a belief.

saying god doesn't exist is a belief.. atheism is a lack of belief. what's not to get? very simple.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 15, 2013)

In all of these descriptions here I've yet to see this one!

Scientism


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 15, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> In all of these descriptions here I've yet to see this one!
> 
> Scientism



Easier to believe what one can perceive with the senses rather than mere thought, wishful thinking and hope.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 15, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Ah. "Mental masturbation" . . . "circle jerk" . . . I get it now.



Ah but what is a "circle"? Is not the whole world a circle? Do people not jerk all around it? In your eagerness to belittle you seem to forget that we are all on the wheel, and those you jerk today may end up jerking you tomorrow.

&#8220;Society is intrinsically a legal fiction,&#8221; says Baudrillard; however, according to Long, it is not so much society that is intrinsically a legal fiction, but rather the genre, and some would say the defining characteristic, of society. The example of nihilism prevalent in Gibson&#8217;s _Idoru_ emerges again in _Neuromancer_. But an abundance of discourses concerning the role of the writer as participant exist. 

&#8220;Narrativity is part of the meaninglessness of truth,&#8221; says Lacan. Precultural Marxism suggests that society, somewhat surprisingly, has significance. However, any number of deconstructions concerning submodern discourse may be found. 


The main theme of the works of Gibson is not deappropriation as such, but predeappropriation. In _Count Zero_, Gibson affirms precultural Marxism; in _All Tomorrow&#8217;s Parties_ he reiterates structuralist discourse. In a sense, Lyotard promotes the use of precultural Marxism to deconstruct colonialist perceptions of sexual identity. 


&#8220;Class is unattainable,&#8221; says Sontag. Lyotard&#8217;s essay on neodialectic modernist theory implies that the task of the poet is social comment. It could be said that Derrida suggests the use of precultural Marxism to read and analyse sexual identity. 
Nihilism holds that language serves to marginalize the proletariat. Thus, Sartre uses the term &#8216;semiotic situationism&#8217; to denote a mythopoetical totality. 


Marx&#8217;s analysis of nihilism states that reality is capable of deconstruction, given that truth is distinct from language. But the ground/figure distinction which is a central theme of Gibson&#8217;s _Mona Lisa Overdrive_ is also evident in _All Tomorrow&#8217;s Parties_, although in a more subdialectic sense. 

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 15, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> In all of these descriptions here I've yet to see this one!
> 
> Scientism


I tired to discuss this with my FB page, which is about science/skepticism, and you would have thought I suggested killing babies. Although I feel the vast majority of what is labeled as scientism is not, I feel we can admit scientism is possible without weakening any scientific position. What I found is that many people who identify as skeptics refuse to acknowledge the term. The way I see it, if someone calls me a cynic, I define what a cynic really is and describe how a skeptic is different. I take the same approach with scientism. We cannot refute the accusation unless we define what scientism is, but the conversation stalled at trying to define it because people are apparently threatened by the term. Meanwhile, the next day I posted about the extinction of the black rhino which was largely due to the poaching of horns for alt-med purposes, and many people expressed that studies prove conservation efforts do not work, so basically it's a waste of time to care. Although this is an isolated and small instance, it seems pretty close to scientism to me.

But mostly what I see as being labeled scientism is actually objectivism.


----------



## bluerock (Nov 15, 2013)

Why is this thread reminding me of H.G. Wells 'The Island of Dr. Moreau'? Perhaps it is all the "Big Thinks" and references to same. While they are surely a form of amusement to pass the time (and collect money in the case of professional Big Thinkers), it's just whistling past the graveyard to me.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Nov 15, 2013)

MojoRison said:


> I find the concepts created by man maddening.


me too, like time, wtf is that

the smiley face means im making a joke right


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 15, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Here ya go connery.. pulled from google since none of the other explanations are getting to you.
> 
> atheist.. "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
> 
> ...


Ah, the Google explanation - how could I have missed it 

Here's a simple concept for you: your belief system is at the very core of your existance - you believe, therefore you are. If you do no believe, you cease to exist. All manifestations in this life are as a direct result of your belief in them. It is your innate belief in this life that casuses you to believe it is real.

Go on, try NOT believing in anything. And I don't mean saying "oh, that's not true, or "I don't believe in that", or "I have no beliefs". They're only words to the effect that you haven't thought through everything to its nth (you can't - none of us can) and so truly don't fully understand what it is you are making judgement on. I'm not talking about words. I'm talking about actual _belief_. It is not a word any more than say, "love" or "life".

Your lack of "belief" (as a so-called truism) in anything is a conscious decision. I have written this already, but hey, if you're into repetition, go right ahead and repeat everything you have ever been told (and not actually thought about) - which is basically what you are doing right now.




Zaehet Strife said:


> Easier to believe what one can perceive with the senses rather than mere thought, wishful thinking and hope.


Every thought is based on our sensory perception. If a brain was grown in a glass jar without any sensory input whatsoever - no heat or cold or sound or light or touch or taste or anyting - what would it think?

You may think it a moot point - how can you keep a brain alive without any external (sensory) input? But forget about the reality and think of the concept: what would a brain think if it had no reference to anything at all? Nothing.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 15, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> Ah but what is a "circle"? Is not the whole world a circle? Do people not jerk all around it? In your eagerness to belittle you seem to forget that we are all on the wheel, and those you jerk today may end up jerking you tomorrow.
> 
> Society is intrinsically a legal fiction, says Baudrillard; however, according to Long, it is not so much society that is intrinsically a legal fiction, but rather the genre, and some would say the defining characteristic, of society. The example of nihilism prevalent in Gibsons _Idoru_ emerges again in _Neuromancer_. But an abundance of discourses concerning the role of the writer as participant exist.
> 
> ...


In my "eagerness to belittle"  I see I was correct in assuming hypocrisy would be left at the door of your argument. Or perhaps you do see the hypocrisy, but like other intellectual narcissists, simply can't help yourself. "The Glacier" - or rather, how it came to be adopted as your moniker - certainly explains a lot.

The defining characterstic of the narcisist is that they only see the beauty in themselves. They may well have cause to admire their own endowments, but sadly, that fails to translate to the wider world around them. Isolated (though perfectly happy in their own company), and with a lack of empathy or any real connect to those around them, they appear to flounder in their own discourse: never quite addressing the needs of others, but rather, constantly trying to satisfying their own. After all, who is more important?

The world is indeed a sphere (it's not really a circle - that's a bit two dimensional), and hence what you are _really_ describing is an ecosphere. This site is an ecosphere. An ecosphere within an ecosphere. And so, while it is all good and well to proletise about the interconnectedness of life (true), it's really just a homily that fails to address the social dynamics of this site and your own status amongst the fanboys.

Why is that important? Because for obfuscation to have its desired effect - much like your example above seems intended to do - you need to speak from an air of authority in the first place. Otherwise it's not obfuscation - it's just white noise.

It's an example of "let's throw _everything_ out there" (you accuse me of "Gish galloping"? LOL! < not too old to use that) and hope it will suitably baffle the unintiated to the point of acquiescence.

That may work in circle jerk, but not in the wider ecosphere.

Anyway, enough of the ad hominem argument (only joking - the "belittling" never really ends, does it? Though I'm sure you don't feel belittled at all - so I'll use it tongue-in-cheek, seeing as you're not shy of it yourself . . .). Lobbing a few conflicting conceptual quotes does not an argument make. None of those ideas are yours and, as you have failed to quantify anything other than repeating the odd dated construct, you haven't actually explained what YOUR position is.

You seem to be insinuating - or asserting - that I am either an epistemological nihilist (an oxymoron, in my opinion), or simply someone who doesn't know how to read a dictionary.

I know what the literal definitions of words are (in their current meaning), so it's a bit of a waste of time trying to reiterate them (as most before you seem preoccupied with).

But what is so hard to understand about the dismissal of "God" - in whatever form (I'm repeating myself again) - as being an act of faith ("belief") in and of itself?

You say you have no beliefs (maybe you don't - you haven't expressly explained your own position). I say that is a belief itself. A "certainty" in the minds of those who prepose. You (they) are no different to those who profess to believe.


* I was going to address your other apparent pre-occupation with precultural Marxism, but as it's been many years - many - since I stopped reading Marx and started living him (admittedly post-cultural Marxism with Chinese characteristics), I'm kinda over it. I'm glad you enjoy Gibson. I'm not quite sure what classist socialist theory has to do with instrinsic belief systems, but I'm sure you will take the time to explain. Or maybe not.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 15, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Lol - yes, I've studied Descartes rather extensively, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem like a nice chap. And I apologise if I appear to be "sneering". I'm not. But if you're familiar with the underlying theories of anthropomorphism, then why can't you accept that ALL "God's" qualities are anthropomorphic, as they can only come from the minds of men? Now, if "God" had his own "God", that might be a different story . . .

If I were little younger, I think I would like to have studied binary code a bit more in-depth, as I am fascinated by the concept of all matter and energy - everything in the currently known universe (and other universes and beyond) - being made up of little pieces of "something" and "nothing' in their purest forms. And as you know, you can't have one without the other. Which merely proves that - in fact - there may well be no such thing as "nothing" - or "non" - and that is why it may well be possible for a "non-apple" to be an "apple" (again, I'm not talking semantics). If everyting in the universe were an apple (I mean a _real_ apple - not the word), then what would a non-apple be? There's a good chance it would also be an apple . . .

And that's my last comparison of "apples" to "non-apples"


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> In my "eagerness to belittle"  I see I was correct in assuming hypocrisy would be left at the door of your argument. Or perhaps you do see the hypocrisy, but like other intellectual narcissists, simply can't help yourself. "The Glacier" - or rather, how it came to be adopted as your moniker - certainly explains a lot.
> 
> The defining characterstic of the narcisist is that they only see the beauty in themselves. They may well have cause to admire their own endowments, but sadly, that fails to translate to the wider world around them. Isolated (though perfectly happy in their own company), and with a lack of empathy or any real connect to those around them, they appear to flounder in their own discourse: never quite addressing the needs of others, but rather, constantly trying to satisfying their own. After all, who is more important?
> 
> ...


The arrogant tone of this post is actually quite cute to be honest

You haven't been around this place very long, so you're forgiven for that much.. 

I've been reading Heis' posts for damn near 5 years now. Your accusation that they attract some sort of 'fanboy' type (which is a huge misconception/projection/belief in itself among theists because that's exactly what people like Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson do, and Christians think that since they do it, atheists do the same thing too..) of people is absurd. While you and your ilk flock around preachers and pastors because your book tells you not to question their authority, the authority garnered by members here is strictly earned, and you're talking about the goddamn godfather of earned authority on RIU. Seriously, check his posts, check his likes, his record speaks for itself. Among the active atheists on RIU, Heisenberg is probably the most level headed, rational person here. The posts that would make me or any other atheist get fed up and attack back are dealt with with a kind of patience I didn't know was possible before joining RIU.

Give the guy some goddamn credit.

I can hear you already.. "Look at this fanboy! Sucking his balls because he doesn't believe in God either.. just what I said..."

Except you fail to realize there is no standing allegiance between any of us, what we say is looked up, criticized, put in the spotlight and scrutinized. Heis, me, or any other atheist here who posts, says something that doesn't make sense or lacks consistency gets called on it. All of us here know that's the only way to better oneself, all of us here know there is no other way to grow. 


Show a little respect


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 16, 2013)

^^ Awesome, Pad! Wish I could rep you for that post. Uh-oh, the circle seems to be forming again...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> But what is so hard to understand about the dismissal of "God" - in whatever form (I'm repeating myself again) - as being an act of faith ("belief") in and of itself?


It's hard to understand/accept because you are wrong and simply can't accept it. It's an irrational question, it doesn't make sense.. You are misrepresenting the positions without realizing it. 


"No gods exist" - Positive statement - gnostic atheist, ie. a person who *believes *God does not exist - faith based

"*I don't know* if a god exists, but I don't believe one does because the evidence available hasn't convinced me" - Negative statement - agnostic atheist, ie. a person who actively believes a god does not exist but holds the possibility of a god existing as he knows there is no way to prove a god does not exist.

"*I don't know* if a god exists, but I do believe one does" - Negative statement - agnostic theist, ie. a person who does not know if a god exists, but believes one does

"God exists" - Positive statement - a gnostic theist, a person who *believes *God exists. 


Believing it is impossible to know if a god exists or not is not an act of faith, it is the only intellectually honest position to hold


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Respect is earned - you got that right. Have a read of the tone of his first post to me. Have a read of just about ALL of your collective's posts towards me (with some exceptions). Reciprocity may be the only language some of you understand in the context of "respect". But that's all it is.

You make a lot of assumptions yourself. That I haven't been around long, for example. How would you know?

There are other assumptions. But I'm not about to point them out, because it amuses me to see you all jump to conclusions. No biggy.

*



Believing it is impossible to know if a god exists or not is not an act of faith, it is the only intellectually honest position to hold

Click to expand...

*Did you just say "believing"?

Sorry mate. You guys go and "Like" each other all you . . . er . . . _like_. Maybe the term "circular" (as in argument) was right after all. But that's just me: I'm happy to change my position where circmustance and new light dictate. I'm always open to new ideas. That's why I said knowledge is a state of flux. In fact, the only constant in life is that it is a state of flux - along with everything else you (and me) think you (we) understand.

Repeating it simply isn't going to make it any more "true". Yep, whatever "true" means.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Now, this all seems to be getting a little personal - as these things tend to do - so do you wish to continue debating people "like me" (whatever that means), or are you just here to say "+1" and all the egging on stuff that collectives do?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> You seem like a nice chap. And I apologise if I appear to be "sneering". I'm not. But if you're familiar with the underlying theories of anthropomorphism, then why can't you accept that ALL "God's" qualities are anthropomorphic, as they can only come from the minds of men? Now, if "God" had his own "God", that might be a different story . . .
> 
> If I were little younger, I think I would like to have studied binary code a bit more in-depth, as I am fascinated by the concept of all matter and energy - everything in the currently known universe (and other universes and beyond) - being made up of little pieces of "something" and "nothing' in their purest forms. And as you know, you can't have one without the other. Which merely proves that - in fact - there may well be no such thing as "nothing" - or "non" - and that is why it may well be possible for a "non-apple" to be an "apple" (again, I'm not talking semantics). If everyting in the universe were an apple (I mean a _real_ apple - not the word), then what would a non-apple be? There's a good chance it would also be an apple . . .
> 
> And that's my last comparison of "apples" to "non-apples"


Just because humans _think_ of a property of something, *does not make that something or the property of that something anthropomorphic or anthropomorphized. *Unless someone assigns a human-like quality to something non-human, it has not been anthropomorphised *regardless* of your opinion of what antropomorphise means. You are not allowed to change the definition to suit your argument. 

If everything in the universe was an actual apple, non-apples wouldn't exist. There are, by the very definition *you* are describing, *no non-apples.* Everything in the universe would be an apple, non-apples would not exist for a comparison to even be made or considered. You could state there is empty space in an apple, but that in and of itself is a property of an apple. The empty space between the atoms of the apple are *intrinsic to the apple,* and cannot be categorized as anything but the apple itself. Your argument doesn't make sense. 

Look at your last sentence, you frame the scenario of the universe as 'only housing apples' (I will assume you mean space exists for an apple or apples to occupy said space), and then go outside your own predetermined definition of what is in the universe (special pleading) to ask 'what is a non-apple in a universe of only apples', and the answer to which you have already given us with the framing of your question is: there isn't a non-apple in a universe of only apples. If you want to define what a non-apple is, you first need to frame the thought experiment in a way that allows for non-apples to exist. 

I have a hard time believing you have this difficult of a time understanding these concepts.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Ah, the Google explanation - how could I have missed it


you don't seem to understand what atheism means. So I figured a very simple explanation would be easy for you to understand. sigh, I was wrong. What's your issue with copy and paste? what difference does it make when the definition is the same whether I explain it or decide not to waste my time explaining? If I explained using my own words, you'd be lost as I tend to rant. So deal with the copy and paste already.



Prawn Connery said:


> Here's a simple concept for you: your belief system is at the very core of your existance - you believe, therefore you are. If you do no believe, you cease to exist. All manifestations in this life are as a direct result of your belief in them. It is your innate belief in this life that casuses you to believe it is real.


I believe therefore I am? Lol.. I'm alive, the world is spinning. When I die, the world will continue spinning. When somebody ceases to exist.. ceases to think, wouldn't the world vanish according to your logic? This is why I try my best to only trust facts and be skeptical when it comes to things that only rely on "belief", "trust", and "faith". 



Prawn Connery said:


> Your lack of "belief" (as a so-called truism) in anything is a conscious decision. I have written this already, but hey, if you're into repetition, go right ahead and repeat everything you have ever been told (and not actually thought about) - which is basically what you are doing right now.


God damn right. I consciously decided to use "critical thinking" to choose what I should believe in and what I shouldn't believe in. You don't think I've thought of your topics? HA I've stressed myself out for years thinking on this. I've come to a different conclusion to you.

I consciously decide not to rely on faith alone. You have to use your thoughts to believe what is true or false. 

Anyways, I was talking to you about one thing.. which is how you don't understand what an atheist is. You set that aside by posting " Ah, the Google explanation - how could I have missed it". Did you read it 100 times yet, smartass? Do you understand that you can have a lack of belief without fully rejecting the idea of a god?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Here's a simple concept for you: your belief system is at the very core of your existance - you believe, therefore you are. If you do no believe, you cease to exist. All manifestations in this life are as a direct result of your belief in them. It is your innate belief in this life that casuses you to believe it is real.


"I think therefore, I am" is in reference to being able to doubt everything in existence *except *ones mind. The only thing, in a philosophical sense, not a practical sense, that one can absolutely confirm exists, is ones self. However, it makes no sense to live like this, as our perceptions and technologies are the only basis we have for understanding the world around us. 

"If you do not believe, you cease to exist", is somewhat true I suppose, because if you stop possessing a mind, you die. The part about 'all manifestations in this life being a result of direct belief' is complete bullshit. Things exist independent of belief, the moon doesn't stop existing just because humans stop existing. Since we are the only animals capable of complex thought, like self-reflection and introspection, when reduced to absurdity your argument basically boils down to: if humans stop existing and stopped perceiving the universe, the universe in turn would cease to exist. 

Considering the universe is 14 billion years old... well...


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

*



If everything in the universe was an actual apple, non-apples wouldn't exist.

Click to expand...

*Exactly! What I actually said was if the universe was an apple itself, then there would be nothing else. An apple would be an apple. A non-apple would be an apple. "But," you say, "non-apples would not exist for a comparison". So by default, non-apples are still apples - aren't they?

Let's apply the same theory to "nothing". If "nothing" is not "something", then how can "nothing" exist? It might not make sense - does any paradox? - and yet, there you are. Something can't come from nothing if nothing exists, but nothing can't exist unless there is something to compare it to.

But what if "something" and "nothing" were actually the same thing? That would be pretty handy, wouldn't it? We could say that before the universe there was nothing, but at least that was something!

We can even take it to the quantum level (until such time as quantum theory is either replaced or dissected to an even smaller degree). We don't know what the smallest thing in the known universe (or even outside our universe) is, only that, according to our own human logic, there must be something - some "thing" - that makes up everything else. You can arrange it in any order you like to give matter and/or energy certain physical (and metaphysical) traits or characterists (as we sense them), but they can all be broken down into their base form - which is essentially the same "stuff". Now let's replace the word "stuff" with "apples".

If apples are the purest form of anything - nothing can make an apple, and an apple can make everyting in the know universe and beyond - then what is a "non-apple"? If there are two apples - a "positive" apple and a "negative" apple, then what are _those_ apples made up of? If you take the concept to the nth degree - as far as you can go - surely they must be made of the same thing? What is that "thing" - an apple.

You cannot even begin to rationalise how big the universe and other universes are until you know what their base is. How big is big? How small is small? Different questions with potentially the same answers.

Segue time: the building blocks of language - what are they? Words are articulated ideas (stemming either from the common human experience or particular cultures) homogenised for the benefit of communication and understanding. We have dictionaries to define those standards, but at the same time there can be a cultural disconnect - like a Scotsman talking to a Texan. You see it all the time on these boards: Americans getting upset with Brits over a turn of phrase or vice versa, when there was really no harm meant.

When I think of the word "belief", I think of it in its purest form - culture plays no part in the definition of the word, because the word describes a part of the human condition that - at its very essence - IS the human condition. Belief. We are all here because we believe we are here. Furthermore, it is instrinsic in our condition because we can't NOT believe we're here. Even if we theorise - even if we philosophise - we are still here.

Belief is all.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." < said by a philosopher who was hated by athiests and theists alike.


On the subject of anthropomorphism, if human qualities and abilities are attributed to an object, then what - first - are those human qualities and abilities?

You have to remember that human qualities and abilities are ever-evolving: what we are capable of today, we may not be capable of tomorrow. What we are not capable of today, we may well be capable of tomorrow.

Anthropomorphism _itself_ is in a state of flux.

There is a Buddhist concept: "The mind is everything - what you think, you become." And in that is the secret to an anthropomorphic "God" versus a non-anthropomorphic "God". What is non-anthropomorphic today could well be anthropomorphic tomorrow!

Why should we limit ourselves to today's knowledge and enlightenment?

Do you not see how the fundamental theist and atheist are now one and the same? Along the entire spectra? They both have a common heritage and _fundamental_ (base) belief system.

This thread has actually been a great social experiment: can you not see how the athiest turns on the theist in exactly the same way - with exactly the same conceptual arguments - as the theist uses to propagate and defend their faith? Whether they actively dismiss the idea of "God" or actively dismiss any other "belief"?

Look around you. "Circle jerk" may be a crude term, but with yourself being somewhat the exemption - and maybe even their "Messiah" (The Glacier) - they are each as dogmatically adhered to their conditioned ideas as the next. They read, therefore they think. Should it not be the other way around? Do I sound condescending? Because, you know, trying to explain the same ideas (and they are only my ideas) in the context of average prejudice (closed-mindeness and baseless assumptions) will do that. It does not matter whether they believe in "God" or not - they are still quick to pillory.

It doesn't even surpise me how quickly it happens any more.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> The part about 'all manifestations in this life being a result of direct belief' is complete bullshit. Things exist independent of belief, the moon doesn't stop existing just because humans stop existing. Since we are the only animals capable of complex thought, like self-reflection and introspection, when reduced to absurdity your argument basically boils down to: if humans stop existing and stopped perceiving the universe, the universe in turn would cease to exist.
> 
> Considering the universe is 14 billion years old... well...


Just saw this . . .

The universe could in all likelihood be a bubble in a milkshake in the udder of an infinte cow. 14 billion years? Who are we to say? It's a 21st Century human reference.

Can you _prove_ things still exist if you cease to? If you can't - and you can't - then the only thing you _can_ know right now for certain (as certain as you can be), is that everything is a construct of your existence - you know nothing else - and when that existence ceaces, you won't be here to know otherwise.

"I think therefore, I am" is in NOT a reference to being able to doubt everything in existence _except _one's mind - unless you mean it to be the exact opposite. Our mind is the only reference point we have:

How do I know everything exists?
Because I exist.

Can I be certain of that?
As certain as I can be in this existence.

Would everything exist without me?
Yes.

Can I be certain of that?
Only while I exist.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Do you understand that you can have a lack of belief without fully rejecting the idea of a god?


Of course I can. I've been saying that along.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Exactly! What I actually said was if the universe was an apple itself, then there would be nothing else. An apple would be an apple. A non-apple would be an apple. "But," you say, "non-apples would not exist for a comparison". So by default, non-apples are still apples - aren't they?


No. Non-apples are not apples in any situation, regardless of word play.



> Let's apply the same theory to "nothing". If "nothing" is not "something", then how can "nothing" exist? It might not make sense - does any paradox? - and yet, there you are. Something can't come from nothing if nothing exists, but nothing can't exist unless there is something to compare it to.


True 'nothing' doesn't exist. It is a lack of space and time. 'Nothing' is only a concept, not a tangible thing in the way humans use it. As far as we can tell, there has never been 'nothing', because as you say 'something' cannot come from 'nothing'. It's basically an axiom, 'Nothing isn't something, and something isn't nothing'.... lol There's nothing to learn from that statement. 

I believe, yes *believe*, that the universe has always existed in some form or another. It is the explanation that assumes the least, therefore is the most likely (Occam's razor).



> But what if "something" and "nothing" were actually the same thing? That would be pretty handy, wouldn't it? We could say that before the universe there was nothing, but at least that was something!


But nothing and something *aren't *the same thing, and that's demonstrable, so what's your point?



> We can even take it to the quantum level (until such time as quantum theory is either replaced or dissected to an even smaller degree). We don't know what the smallest thing in the known universe (or even outside our universe) is, only that, according to our own human logic, there must be something - some "thing" - that makes up everything else. You can arrange it in any order you like to give matter and/or energy certain physical (and metaphysical) traits or characterists (as we sense them), but they can all be broken down into their base form - which is essentially the same "stuff". Now let's replace the word "stuff" with "apples".


Why do you feel the need to redefine things? If you want to say everything in existence is made of some basic building block, the burden of proof is on you to prove what it is, and that matter, energy, dark matter, and any other form of 'something' are composed of that 'something'. 



> If apples are the purest form of anything - nothing can make an apple, and an apple can make everyting in the know universe and beyond - then what is a "non-apple"? If there are two apples - a "positive" apple and a "negative" apple, then what are _those_ apples made up of? If you take the concept to the nth degree - as far as you can go - surely they must be made of the same thing? What is that "thing" - an apple.


I'm not going to use the term 'apple' to define the smallest building blocks that exist, mostly because we don't even know if there is a smallest building block; for all we know it could be an infinite regression of smaller, and smaller particles.



> You cannot even begin to rationalise how big the universe and other universes are until you know what their base is. How big is big? How small is small? Different questions with potentially the same answers.


We have to rationalize with the knowledge we have in order to attempt to build an understanding of the reality we live in. It's the only tools we really have for doing so. 




> Segue time: the building blocks of language - what are they? Words are articulated ideas (stemming either from the common human experience or particular cultures) homogenised for the benefit of communication and understanding. We have dictionaries to define those standards, but at the same time there can be a cultural disconnect - like a Scotsman talking to a Texan. You see it all the time on these boards: Americans getting upset with Brits over a turn of phrase or vice versa, when there was really no harm meant.
> 
> When I think of the word "belief", I think of it in its purest form - culture plays no part in the definition of the word, because the word describes a part of the human condition that - at its very essence - IS the human condition. Belief. We are all here because we believe we are here. Furthermore, it is instrinsic in our condition because we can't NOT believe we're here. Even if we theorise - even if we philosophise - we are still here.


Disagree. Stated this before, existence does not go away when a mind is not there to experience it. Fucking fact, take it or leave it, but you ain't changin' it.



> Belief is all.
> 
> "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." < said by a philosopher who was hated by athiests and theists alike.


Exactly. And we did invent him as a way of explaining the world before we had science. 




> On the subject of anthropomorphism, if human qualities and abilities are attributed to an object, then what - first - are those human qualities and abilities?
> 
> You have to remember that human qualities and abilities are ever-evolving: what we are capable of today, we may not be capable of tomorrow. What we are not capable of today, we may well be capable of tomorrow.
> 
> Anthropomorphism _itself_ is in a state of flux.


How so?



> There is a Buddhist concept: "The mind is everything - what you think, you become." And in that is the secret to an anthropomorphic "God" versus a non-anthropomorphic "God". What is non-anthropomorphic today could well be anthropomorphic tomorrow!
> 
> Why should we limit ourselves to today's knowledge and enlightenment?


We should limit our beliefs to the rational/reasoned/demonstrable, because it's the best way of ensuring a person holds the most true beliefs and rejects the most false beliefs. It's not a perfect tool (science), but it is self correcting.



> Do you not see how the fundamental theist and atheist are now one and the same? Along the entire spectra? They both have a common heritage and _fundamental_ (base) belief system.


I see what you're attempting to explain, it's just not convincing. You are still attempting to boil two terms which are diametrically opposed, down to the same thing. A point that is fundamentally flawed based on the plethora of information we've provided you, e.g. atheism, agnosticism, the difference between knowledge claims and beliefs, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Do *you* not see how only gnostic atheists hold a belief structure regarding a deity? 



> This thread has actually been a great social experiment: can you not see how the athiest turns on the theist in exactly the same way - with exactly the same conceptual arguments - as the theist uses to propagate and defend their faith? Whether they actively dismiss the idea of "God" or actively dismiss any other "belief"?


Again, you're completely incorrect. This is getting tiresome explaining the same thing over and over again. A theist holds a belief in god, that is they accept the statement 'god exists' on faith, and formulate a belief based on the faith that god exists. An atheist rejects the statement that 'god exists' but doesn't necessarily believe that god 'doesn't exist'. Any agnostic atheist could be easily converted to theism provided that the burden of proof is filled. 



> Look around you. "Circle jerk" may be a crude term, but with yourself being somewhat the exemption - and maybe even their "Messiah" (The Glacier) - they are each as dogmatically adhered to their conditioned ideas as the next. They read, therefore they think. Should it not be the other way around? Do I sound condescending? Because, you know, trying to explain the same ideas (and they are only my ideas) in the context of average prejudice (closed-mindeness and baseless assumptions) will do that. It does not matter whether they believe in "God" or not - they are still quick to pillory.
> 
> It doesn't even surpise me how quickly it happens any more.


Dogma implies an unchanging set of values that are not evidence based, and do not require the burden of proof to be filled. Simply because someone doesn't have a belief in god, it does not follow that they are dogmatic with regards to *how or why *they rejected the claim that 'god exists'. Why would it? You are making a ton of unsubstantiated assumptions.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> But nothing and something *aren't *the same thing, and that's demonstrable, so what's your point?


I'm only going to answer this one because I'm high as fuck again:

You show me nothing - you "demonstrate" nothing - and then I'll believe you that they aren't the same thing. It's not demonstrable, because you really don't know what "nothing" is. You have never sensed it and never will. No human ever will while they exist. You can only conceptualise abstractly what you _think_ it is based on your human experience - and that doesn't include "nothing" while you're here.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Oh, and God's not a deity. It's a concept. That's where those who "have no belief" can't cop out. You do. Accept it. Whether it's your belief in science or reality or your own existential existence, you believe, therefor you are, therefor non-belief is an active form. You can't say: "Oh, I have no beliefs." No-one has no beliefs. You have to believe in what you are reading and writing right now to continue to act. And if you don't, then you have to believe in the idea behind the action to commit it. Otherwise you won't. Because you _have made a conscious decision not to._


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

^

(2 posts up)

................


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Yeah, I lied.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

There is a conceptualized 'nothing' between matter and consciousness. I think that's about as close as it gets for the human slice of awareness.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Like the pivot on a set of infinite scales. Where do you separate them?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Like the pivot on a set of infinite scales. Where do you separate them?


That only happens in the empirical world. Each infinity 'knows' its boundary and has pushed through. Did I just say that out loud?


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Back to where they started.


----------



## MojoRison (Nov 16, 2013)

Thought is but the key...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

MojoRison said:


> Thought is but the key...


To Mansions "houses" that were expressing the idea of dimensions. Cool sht


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> I'm only going to answer this one because I'm high as fuck again:
> 
> You show me nothing - you "demonstrate" nothing - and then I'll believe you that they aren't the same thing. It's not demonstrable, because you really don't know what "nothing" is. You have never sensed it and never will. No human ever will while they exist. You can only conceptualise abstractly what you _think_ it is based on your human experience - and that doesn't include "nothing" while you're here.


Impossible. I already stated that 'nothing' is void of space and time. In order for there to be 'nothing', there would be no universe, or even pre-universe. When talking about things in existence, we have to assume we exist, and we have to assume the people we are interacting with exist or else there's no point to any discourse. If someone hands you an empty bucket, you would be easily convinced that there is 'nothing' in the bucket. It doesn't mean there's no air in the bucket, or dust, or particles, or that there is a the philosophical, abstract, concept of nothing in the bucket. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

When we discuss the 'lack of belief' that is atheism, it doesn't mean atheists have no beliefs at all, to pretend so is also intellectually dishonest. It only means the burden of proof has not been met to formulate a belief in the existence in god. Get it through your head, man!



Prawn Connery said:


> Oh, and God's not a deity. It's a concept. That's where those who "have no belief" can't cop out. You do. Accept it. Whether it's your belief in science or reality or your own existential existence, you believe, therefor you are, therefor non-belief is an active form. You can't say: "Oh, I have no beliefs." No-one has no beliefs. You have to believe in what you are reading and writing right now to continue to act. And if you don't, then you have to believe in the idea behind the action to commit it. Otherwise you won't. Because you _have made a conscious decision not to._


Here you go again, redefining what 'god' means. The goalposts are just fine where they are, thanks. 

If god is only a concept then he bears no weight on reality, and should be treated as such, i.e. no one should follow any religion or religious dogma because god is fictional. Also, if god is only an abstract concept, and doesn't exist within the tangible realm of the universe, why would anyone follow his moral code anyway? The consequences for disobedience would be fake, and so would the rewards for compliance. It would, by default, be man-made and would fall into the same 'non-cosmically objective' category that atheistic moral values are seated in. 

Can't 'cop out'? Even if god, as you claim, is just a concept and not a tangible thing, that doesn't mean I have to have a belief in the ideology behind it. 

If everyone in existence thought along those lines, that god is only a concept, it would eliminate theists and atheists, because there would be no claim to knowledge or claim of belief, about gods existence as everyone would agree he didn't exist. An interesting thought experiment, but it isn't congruent with reality and the claim that 'god exists' is very alive and well, hence the rejection of that belief, e.g. atheism. 

Atheist literally means non-theist. If you are not a theist, for any reason, you are atheist. 

If you hand me a glass of water and I claim the water is 'not cold', does that mean the water is hot? No, it doesn't. It's simply the rejection of the idea that the water is cold, it makes no further assertions about what the water is, or isn't. You are making an assumption about belief based on what someone doesn't believe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that non-belief is belief in the opposite.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Oh, and God's not a deity. It's a concept. That's where those who "have no belief" can't cop out. You do. Accept it. Whether it's your belief in science or reality or your own existential existence, you believe, therefor you are, therefor non-belief is an active form. You can't say: "Oh, I have no beliefs." No-one has no beliefs. You have to believe in what you are reading and writing right now to continue to act. And if you don't, then you have to believe in the idea behind the action to commit it. Otherwise you won't. Because you _have made a conscious decision not to. _


Who said they have no beliefs? many of us said we don't believe in god, but what does that have to do with not having any beliefs? 

I like facts because they stand true whether you believe them or not.. for everybody. I have beliefs.. I believe gravity exists, see? 

I agree with you on this post.. Not sure why you think we're saying we have no beliefs.


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> In my "eagerness to belittle"  I see I was correct in assuming hypocrisy would be left at the door of your argument. Or perhaps you do see the hypocrisy, but like other intellectual narcissists, simply can't help yourself. "The Glacier" - or rather, how it came to be adopted as your moniker - certainly explains a lot.
> 
> The defining characterstic of the narcisist is that they only see the beauty in themselves. They may well have cause to admire their own endowments, but sadly, that fails to translate to the wider world around them. Isolated (though perfectly happy in their own company), and with a lack of empathy or any real connect to those around them, they appear to flounder in their own discourse: never quite addressing the needs of others, but rather, constantly trying to satisfying their own. After all, who is more important?
> 
> ...


As my link explained: The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Didn't click the link. Sorry. My bad.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Impossible. I already stated that 'nothing' is void of space and time.


Really? (Not forgetting, of course, "space-time" is a single entity - they're not separate.) Can you please explain to us all: what is left in the absence of space and time?

If space-time is ever-expanding - as modern physicists (and by proxy, you, I assume) believe - what is it expanding into?

Just because there is an absence of space-time, does that mean there is really nothing - the absence of _anything_?

If you can't define "nothing" - which you clearly can't - then how on earth do you even begin to rationalise its properties? Or _lack_ of properties, as it were.

Please don't pretend you know what "nothing" is. You don't.



Beefbisquit said:


> In order for there to be 'nothing', there would be no universe, or even pre-universe.


Hang on. I'm not about to tell you what YOU believe. But if the so-called "Big Bang" - or any other universe-creating phenomena - happened, how do you explain the _absence_ of nothing? (You like that oxymoron?)

How can you have "something" without "nothing" to compare it to?

^ This is exactly the same as your "apples" and "non-apples" analogy? So if you don't believe your OWN analogy, then perhaps you really do believe my theory in the possibility of nothing and something being the same thing . . .

It's the only other alternative, by your logic - isn't it?



Beefbisquit said:


> When we discuss the 'lack of belief' that is atheism, it doesn't mean atheists have no beliefs at all, to pretend so is also intellectually dishonest. It only means the burden of proof has not been met to formulate a belief in the existence in god. Get it through your head, man!


You talk as if I don't get what you're saying - and yet you contradict yourself every step of the way . . .

I never said atheists have no belief at all:



Prawn Connery said:


> No-one has no beliefs.


If you are denying there is enough proof to form a belief, then you are putting your belief into the _lack of proof_.

Do you not get that? It takes an element of belief to deny a belief in the first place.

There may be ample proof to form a belief (or not) in the existence of "God", but you either choose to dismiss it (a belief), form an opinion there is not enough proof (a belief), or simply _don't think (believe)_ you have enough knowledge - in which case you don't have enough proof to form a valid view that there is not enough proof and are therefore making a conscious decision to form a view in the absence of anything to quantify it (a belief!).



Beefbisquit said:


> Here you go again, redefining what 'god' means. The goalposts are just fine where they are, thanks.


You don't know what "God" means any more than I do. Don't pretend otherwise. It's not convincing.

EVERYTHING is a concept until it is proven (in your empirical world).

eye exaggerate is the only one who has mentioned empiricism so far - he gets it. And if someone else gets it, then perhaps I'm not as "off my rocker" as some here have suggested . . . 



Beefbisquit said:


> If everyone in existence thought along those lines, that god is only a concept, it would eliminate theists and atheists, because there would be no claim to knowledge or claim of belief, about gods existence as everyone would agree he didn't exist.


No they wouldn't. If you hold a concept, then you believe in its possibility (however likely or unlikely).

That's what a concept is.



Beefbisquit said:


> If you hand me a glass of water and I claim the water is 'not cold', does that mean the water is hot? No, it doesn't. It's simply the rejection of the idea that the water is cold, it makes no further assertions about what the water is, or isn't. You are making an assumption about belief based on what someone doesn't believe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that non-belief is belief in the opposite.


Bang your head all you want, because that's not what I'm saying.

Non-belief IS a belief. < You want to debate that? Because that's what I've been saying - ad nauseam - so I'm not quite sure how you reached the "opposite" conclusion . . .


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

INTERMISSION

[video=youtube;fo5c8Qplfco]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo5c8Qplfco[/video]


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Who said they have no beliefs? many of us said we don't believe in god, but what does that have to do with not having any beliefs?
> 
> I like facts because they stand true whether you believe them or not.. for everybody. I have beliefs.. I believe gravity exists, see?
> 
> I agree with you on this post.. Not sure why you think we're saying we have no beliefs.


You're reading into something that's not there.

I don't want to be churlish, because after what you've been through and sound like you will continuing to go through, you are obviously conflicted (and I mean emotionally, in regards to your family, not your position on being atheist - or whatever it is you now believe).

If it's any consolation, threads like this prove so-called atheists can be just as closed-minded and damning of beliefs as so-called theists can be closed-minded and damning of non-beliefs. That's why I originally wrote that people who take opposing views - and who try to propagate and/or defend those views - are really just one and the same. They use the same arguments, logic and rational to try to refute each other and can rarely bring themselves to see things from the other side. It's ego, pride, fallibility, the human condition - whatever you want to call it.

_I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as fraud_ - Jung

Well, waddayaknow - that Postmodernism Generator works a treat . . .


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

^ that's fckd up, I am reading Jung beside this tab and I was just going to post some.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

[video=youtube;njJr09msGOo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJr09msGOo[/video]

You're only one small speck in space
You're only one life, soon erased
Be there none left on Earth but you
One thing will still remain true:

Look around . . . You're only five yards from a fuckwit . . .


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

"The attitude called for in this approach is one of receptivity rather than intentionally directed activity&#8212;more yin than yang. What is generally referred to as ego functioning is to be avoided in favor of letting the thoughts think themselves. Rather than the active application of a particular theoretical framework, the strategy is more one of an unreserved attention to the unfolding of the thought at the essential core of the phenomenon.

This unfolding typically has the form of an uroboric process. It has many of the features of the dialectical process of thought described by G.W.F Hegel in his _Science of Logic_. In such a process, thought moves through a series of steps in which each step is found wanting in some respect and is therefore subject to a negation. The original starting point, the prima materia, is thus negated, but at the same time it is carried forward in a logically more complex or sublated form. Gradually, through a series of such iterations, including a &#8220;_negation of the negation_,&#8221; the logical structure or absolute negativity of the phenomenon is revealed, or as Giegerich sometimes puts it, it is &#8220;released into its truth.&#8221; At some point, the analysis may negate even its own negativity and in so doing consciousness posits itself via or as some &#8220;other,&#8221; an other completely independent of itself, that is, in the status of positivity. It should be noted that whatever &#8220;truth&#8221; is revealed is relative to its own dialectical unfolding; it is not a universal Platonic truth or a truth in the sense of a scientific finding. When there seems to be no more thought &#8220;thinking itself out,&#8221; the process has reached its completion; however, the understanding acquired may now constitute a new position, a new _prima materia_, from which the process may start over, perhaps with a different emphasis."


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> ^ that's fckd up, I am reading Jung beside this tab and I was just going to post some.


LOL! Don't freak out too much. It was generated by that other Postmodernism Generator - the RIU Sprituality & Sexuality & Philosophy poster. To wit . . . I mean, _fuckwit_ . . . yours truly.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

Too bad, would have been nice to document such a happening happening


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

> At some point, the analysis may negate even its own negativity and in so doing consciousness posits itself via or as some &#8220;other,&#8221; an other completely independent of itself, that is, in the status of positivity.



I'm glad you're more than five yards away . . .


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> I'm glad you're more than five yards away . . .[/FONT][/COLOR]


5 1/4. AND the other quarter is pretty green as well


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> Too bad, would have been nice to document such a happening happening


Someone else here said we can't influence the things around us - that we can't just "think of something, and make it so". And yet, our entire life is proof of it.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> 5 1/4. AND the other quarter is pretty green as well


The green. Yes. It's salmonella. I've had this avatar a long time. It dates from OG's Shark Tank days.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Someone else here said we can't influence the things around us - that we can't just "think of something, and make it so". And yet, our entire life is proof of it.


I've been trying to write a response and am having trouble with the board. Don't know if it's just me...

What you said veers toward dependant origination. I can say one thing in life with absolute certainty. One day, my dad (likely, dunno, don't caaaaaaaare  ) had a thought and now I have a universe to study. Ok, so maybe chance has a bit to do with it


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Yes, like Those goddamn CAPTCHA!, we didn't ask for it.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Hey tyler: "I'll have ya!"

[video=youtube;6vgEk2PMV3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vgEk2PMV3o[/video]

You look like Abel Tasman,
You look like Barney Rubble;
You look like Mussolini -
If ya pickin' me, there'll be trouble


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 16, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Non-belief IS a belief.





Prawn Connery said:


> Someone else here said we can't influence the things around us - that we can't just *"think of something, and make it so". And yet, our entire life is proof of it.*


What are you talking about? Is this another baseless assertion you're fond of? 

Please don't tell me you're into 'The secret'....



This is getting really boring now. 

Non-belief is not a belief and its demonstrable with anyone who has never been told about god. They have no belief in god whatsoever - including a belief regarding *non-belief (as fucking stupid as that even sounds).* People who have no concept of god are atheists too, therefore* the atheist ideology cannot by default, be a position of belief because there are situations in which there is demonstrably no belief. *

You have yet provide any demonstrable evidence other than your own (incorrect) opinion about what atheism means. You've ignored countless scholarly definitions, and explanations by experts regarding what atheism is or means. I have nothing left to say, as there is no point to continuing dialogue with someone who doesn't care about rational and logical discourse.


*If someone doesnt value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence.

If someone doesnt value logic, what logical argument would you invoke to prove they should value logic?*

&#8213; Sam Harris


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Garbage: 
[video=youtube;SI1GXKYzZvc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI1GXKYzZvc[/video]

If you want to save the world, then don't recycle (ideas).


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 16, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> *the atheist ideology cannot by default, be a position of belief because there are situations in which there is demonstrably no belief.*


Then demonstrate it. Just like I asked you to demonstrate "nothing". Find me a link, a theory, a concept - anything - to back your "evidence-based" theory that there is no belief.

Show me some of your "evidence".

The example of the baby who has "no knowledge and therefore no beliefs" is a fallacy: they simply have no knowledge of a particular definition of a particular concept of "God" - yours in this case; perhaps someone else's in another case. But not everyone's. The baby may have it's own "definition" of "God" - it's mother. And who are YOU to tell that baby what it's "definition" of an omnipotent being is?

You are the same as that infant: you are basing everything you know on what knowledge you have (or don't have) at this very time and place in your existence.

Your thinking is only slightly evolved from that baby and is based purely on what you have experienced and how you perceive it. The only difference is, you've lived a little longer.

What you are saying is there is only one definition of "God" - your "accepted" definition - and no other concept is valid.

That's a little presumptuous, isn't it?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 17, 2013)

Prawn Connery said:


> Then demonstrate it. Just like I asked you to demonstrate "nothing". Find me a link, a theory, a concept - anything - to back your "evidence-based" theory that there is no belief.
> 
> Show me some of your "evidence".
> 
> The example of the baby who has "no knowledge and therefore no beliefs" is a fallacy: they simply have no knowledge of a particular definition of a particular concept of "God" - yours in this case; perhaps someone else's in another case. But not everyone's. The baby may have it's own "definition" of "God" - it's mother. And who are YOU to tell that baby what it's "definition" of an omnipotent being is?


You're moving the goalposts to suit your argument. It's not an honest tactic, and one I will not debate against. 

Let's just redefine atheist, and redefine god, and redefine religion, and redefine omnipotence, so they fit the argument *you *want to make! That's the best way of winning, right? Changing the rules of the game? The universe is an apple, and atoms are apples, and moms are gods, and babies are theists. Awesome discussion. *sarcasm*

Babies do not have introspection and the ability to determine right from wrong, so your analogy is completely flawed from the get go, and omits things we know about child psychology, but that's ok! We're just moving goalposts all over the place! 

I'm going to redefine the word atheist to mean anyone who has ever gone to a hospital instead of praying. Now you're an atheist, BAM. 

While we're at it, if moms can be omnipotent gods, then so can I. And with my omnipotence, I am declaring myself myself the winner of this debate.


----------



## Prawn Connery (Nov 17, 2013)

There are no rules. That's the first thing you got wrong. The rest just followed.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 17, 2013)

In a rational discussion there are rules.


----------



## pacificarage (Nov 17, 2013)

Monotheism = One God
Polytheism = Multiple Gods
Atheism = No God(s)


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 26, 2013)

[video=youtube_share;1Eo4O51vqzg]http://youtu.be/1Eo4O51vqzg[/video]


----------



## foreverflyhi (Dec 26, 2013)

Proud atheist i am.


----------

