I doubt atheist would die for each other. [YOU RESPOND]

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
I doubt atheist would die for each other. [YOU RESPOND]

From: spring_rain@insight.rr.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:09 AM
Subject: [General Question] Have you really considered the claims of God? Do you know what they are? [Misspelled words corrected.]

 

Dan sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.

In the Bible I read that God is not just angry every day with the wicked,
but also that he is truthful, loving, kind, just, peaceable, long
suffering, etc.
As I am typing this I see in the upper left hand corner of your web page
what appears to be your mascot...an angry cat wearing your badge and eager
to kill someone. Only in Jesus do I find real love...He humbled himself
taking on the form of a man only to suffer and die to pay the price for the
sins of mankind.
Would you die for each other if it made a difference? I doubt that you
would because most atheists believe in survival of the fittest.
You live in a sad world where there is only sorrow, suffering and death to
look forward to. My home is in heaven and I am only here on a journey.
Wouldn’t it be worth your time to consider what God would be like if all
of his claims were true?
If he is both just and loving, then doesn’t it make sense that he must
punish unrepentant sinners (His justice) but that he would go to the nth
degree to make a way for men to be forgiven if they will repent? (His
love)

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Like most ignorant

Like most ignorant unbelievers, you totally misunderstand Rambo-Kitty.

Rambo-Kitty is not about hate, but love. His holy AK-47 of vengeance spews only hot lead for the unbeliever, who may receive Rambo-Kitty's love whenever they wish, all they need to is Dodge the Bullet by accepting the Rationality of Reason into thier lives. In the eyes of Rambo-Kitty, we are all flawed, and we are liked by Rambo-Kitty for our reason, but loved by Rambo-Kitty for our flaws, because it gives something for Rambo-Kitty to shoot at. This is why he Righteously guns down the unbeliever and causes them incredible suffering on the Vest-Bomb of Eternity: The purest love there is.

I know this to be true, as it was revealed in the holy tome "Shit I Just Made Up by Jill Swift", which was written by Rambo-Kitty and revealed to His (or her? Was he neutered?) One True Prophet, Hambydammit. Amen.

Hope this helps.

--Jill

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 You mean Rambo-Kitty?Yeah,

 You mean Rambo-Kitty?

Yeah, I think you've missed something here.  I'm a pacifist.  Really.

Rambo-Kitty is a metaphor, you see.  You're familiar with the saying "Curiosity killed the cat," right?  Well, this curious cat kills irrationality through the power of science and reason.

Sorry, kiddo.  Read some of my posts.  I'm about as anti-violence as it gets, and I'm also about the most easy going person on the boards.  Show some imagination, ok?  It's like... you know... literary... and shit.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:You mean

Hambydammit wrote:

You mean Rambo-Kitty?

It's like... you know... literary... and shit.

And much cuter than your actual picture.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In the Bible I read

Quote:
In the Bible I read that God is not just angry every day with the wicked,
but also that he is truthful, loving, kind, just, peaceable, long
suffering, etc.

Uh. Is he also vulnerable to Kryptonite?

 

I think you may need to have a talk with your parents. Superman: Issue 237 is, perhaps contrary to what you told, not a canonical version of the Bible.

Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
spring_rain,Isn't life

spring_rain,

Isn't life important to your god? My life is important to me. I would explore every option for saving someone. One of those options does not need to include sacrifice.

I notice you key in on the cat instead of the smiling faces next to it. I guess because friendly smiling atheists don't help your argument.

The only sadness in this world is the belief that we have to have a sky daddy to watch over us. The very idea that we aren't capable of living together in peace and harmony without some megalomaniacal tyrant overseeing everything but doing nothing makes no sense whatsoever.

Does sacrificing oneself to oneself make amends for broken rules that oneself has made?

Does it really count as a sacrifice if you get to live forever as second-in-command? Seems rather a self-motivated 'sacrifice' to go through one day of pain and torture for eternal bliss and vengeance. Don't you think?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Theist Daniel (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Not as ignorant as you would like to believe.

I'm glad to know that you do not consider yourselves violent, at least not yet.

But I am curious to know what code of moral law that you follow as an atheist that makes murder wrong, or that makes stealing wrong, or lying or cheating or deceiving wrong.

Are not your major tenants as follows?:

1. look out for number one

2. survival of the fittest

3. do unto others before they do unto you

4. live, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die (live it up and fear not to face judgement for it)

5. lie, cheat, steal trick and deceive as long as you can get away with it, just dont hurt anyone that you don't want to.

6. people are just animals, so use them and treat them as such unless it benefits you to treat them better.

7. good and bad is reletive; therefore for me it will be whatever I make it.

 

It seems to me that any government baised upon such principals is doomed to failure and any society baised upon such would be unbearable to live in. Governments would constantly be overthrown and the people would have eachother to fear most of all. You can thank the forefathers of this nation that they built the laws of this country upon Biblical principals and morals.

Now back to the more critical thing to consider. Have you ever used your super intellegent reasoning skills to consider that there must be a creator who created the delecate, intricate, and interdependent life on earth? Don't overlook that word interdependent. From what I have heard of Charles Darwin he finally came to admit at the end of his life that the theory of evolution is proven false by such intricate and interdependent things as the human eye. You see, the human eye has many aspects that would have to have evolved at the exact same time in order to prevent natural selection from ruling it out. Tear ducts, optic nerve, retna, lens, cones, rods, etc all had to evolve at the exact same time or natural selection would rule out the mutation from continuing. The chances that all the aspects of the eye mutated into exhistance at the exact same time is astronimacally small. If you wish to reason and to consider more such evidences which prove that God created life on earth, then check into the Creation Research Institute.

 

Seek the Lord Jesus while He may be found, call upon Him while He is still near. He can be you saviour now or you judge at the Great White Throne judgement. Please consider these thins before its to late.

Isaiah 1:18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In the Bible I read

Quote:
In the Bible I read that God is not just angry every day with the wicked, but also that he is truthful, loving, kind, just, peaceable, long suffering, etc.

Yes, he's quite a character, isn't he?

Quote:
As I am typing this I see in the upper left hand corner of your web page what appears to be your mascot...an angry cat wearing your badge and eager to kill someone.

Which tells me that you really didn't take the time to explore this website.

Quote:
Only in Jesus do I find real love...He humbled himself taking on the form of a man only to suffer and die to pay the price for the sins of mankind.

Ah, the guilt trip, a classic.

Quote:
Would you die for each other if it made a difference? I doubt that you would because most atheists believe in survival of the fittest.

Oh, DG's not going to like this one.

Quote:
You live in a sad world where there is only sorrow, suffering and death to look forward to.

Yes, just keep pulling at my emotional strings; that'll work.

Quote:
My home is in heaven and I am only here on a journey.

So what are you waiting for? Don't you want to go home?

Quote:
Wouldn’t it be worth your time to consider what God would be like if all of his claims were true?

I have considered this many times. 

Quote:
If he is both just and loving, then doesn’t it make sense that he must punish unrepentant sinners (His justice) but that he would go to the nth degree to make a way for men to be forgiven if they will repent? (His love)


Infinite mercy + infinite justice = does not compute. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Theist-Daniel (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Holyiness, righteousnesss, justice and love...Perfect

I can see that you have not stopped to throughly consider the character, nature and claims of God.

If your're going to be rational, you have to consider all the claims that God has made and just what he would act like if they were all true.

He claims to be holy (pure from sin), just (executes perfect justice), gracious (gives to the unworthy), merciful (desires to withhold judgement), longsuffering (gives us time and space to repent), loving (cares for us so much that he was was willing to die in our place), etc.

Just from the handful of His atributes that I mentioned above, we could easily consider the following:

That His holiness demands punishment for sin. (The wages of sin is death.)

That His justice demands that the proper judgement be executed.

(Perhaps I should mention here that Hell was created for Lucifer (Satan) and for the angles that followed him in his rebellion in heaven to overthrow God. This was high treason since Lucifer was perhaps the highest ranking Cherub given the job of guarding over the holiness of God. Hell was not created for man. Nevertheless, it appears to me that man became worthy of the same punishment when he joined the rebellion through disobedience to God at Lucifer's advice.)

That His mercy would find a way for mankind (which was tricked into the rebellion) to find forgiveness and pardon.

Exactly as we might expect from a God with such wounderful attributes, God's justice demanded a perfect (someone without sin) blood sacrifice (the life of the flesh is in the blood, and so the flesh was not offically dead until the blood departed from it) to pay for the sins man has done.

All men being born sinners, only Jesus (God the Son) could meet the requirement of a perfect sacrifice. It does no good for a sinner to die for a sinner, only the death of the sinless can count for the sinner.

Since Jesus never sinned, death could not hold him and he arose from the dead and is now at the right hand of the Father speaking on behalf of his "sheep".

 

It is clear to me that only Jesus deserves to be "second in command". Only Jesus wil love his sheep, feed his sheep, die for his sheep and fight off the wolves. Who would you rather have, Lucifer?, Karl Heinrich Marx?

 


Theist Daniel (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Dying for someone else that you consider to be despicable.

Ok, I can see that I need to further elaborate on the kind of love that dies for someone else when it could make a difference.

Jesus left heaven on a mission to live as a man die a horrable death by tourture, all to give people he considered to be despicable, wicked and deserving of hell a chance to find pardon and forgiveness if they would repent and call upon Him for forgiveness.

This was not like a soldier risking his life for his pals.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I am quite sure a few of the

I am quite sure a few of the website members here are military or have been in the military.

AND

www.maaf.info

Just in case you think atheists dont protect their own, and your sorry butt as well too. But according to people like you only people who kill for Jesus are worthy of serving. The rest of us are mere token tax revinue for the IRS, as long as we sit quietly at the back of the bus.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Theist Daniel (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Responce to "killing for Jesus"

As I said in my 3rd post (as yet none of my posts that I have made in responce to your comments have posted yet. It appears that the moderator is either perplexed by my answers or prefers a one sided "discussion&quotEye-wink, risking your life for your pals is not the same as leaving heaven on a mission to suffer tourture and die in the place of people like the apostle Paul (who went about killing Christians thinking that he did God service as a devout Jew before he met Jesus personally and was converted), Nero (who burned christians at the stake and fed them to lions), the Popes and the jesuits (who have killed many christians in their inquisitions {see Foxes Book of Martyrs for details}), Adolf Hitler, etc, all so that wicked and hell deserving men could justly find forgiveness and pardon.

Jesus came on a mission to "seek and to save that which was list" and gave this great commission to his followers..."go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature". No where in the Bible do I find Jesus instructing me to kill anyone. On the contrary we find these instructions "love your enemys, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you."

The world is now in a resource war. America seeks to protect the "oil selling for dollars policy" struck with the Saudi royal family to protect America's economy. After watching the film "A crude Awakening" I am pretty convinced that the gulf wars and recent war with Iraq were all about protecting America's intreast in the oil; little else. Sure there are "terrorists" trying to kill us. They are a people that think that they should have full control over their own oil and that the United States is a greedy bully.

If men would get to know Jesus (Americans, Arabs and Jews in particular) the resource wars could end. Biblical moral code says that you don't covet, steal, cheat, kill, etc.)

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'm glad to know that

Quote:
I'm glad to know that you do not consider yourselves violent, at least not yet.

But I am curious to know what code of moral law that you follow as an atheist that makes murder wrong, or that makes stealing wrong, or lying or cheating or deceiving wrong.

Actually, since you're the one claiming the moral high ground, I'd like you to back-up your moral system first:

 

 - My distant ancestor (Eve) commits a transgression.

 - God is so displeased at the transgression that he visits retribution upon Eve, as well as decides to judge everyone yet to even exist in Eve's lineage as 'sinners', effectively faulting the entire human race forever for one person's mistake.

 - God eventually decides that he'll forgive us, but only if he gets to visit unimaginable torture on one of us first, and even after that reserves his forgiveness only for those who pledge to praise him endlessly for all eternity afterward.

 

How does this create a system of 'perfect morality'?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Dan wrote:From:

Dan wrote:

From: spring_rain@insight.rr.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:09 AM
Subject: [General Question] Have you really considered the claims of God? Do you know what they are? [Misspelled words corrected.]

In the Bible I read that God is not just angry every day with the wicked,

Do you know who wrote the bible? No, it was not the thing you call god.


Quote:
but also that he is truthful, loving, kind, just, peaceable, long suffering, etc.

Riiiiight, umm, did you read the story where that god-thing drowned everything?

And you say this god suffers? I guess you are imagining that a god (whatever that is) is biologically like an animal?


Quote:
Only in Jesus do I find real love

I'm sorry you are so lonely. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "in".

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:

Would you die for each other if it made a difference? I doubt that you
would because most atheists believe in survival of the fittest.
You live in a sad world where there is only sorrow, suffering and death to
look forward to. My home is in heaven and I am only here on a journey.
Wouldn’t it be worth your time to consider what God would be like if all
of his claims were true?
If he is both just and loving, then doesn’t it make sense that he must
punish unrepentant sinners (His justice) but that he would go to the nth
degree to make a way for men to be forgiven if they will repent? (His
love)

The answer is , Yes!

I have risked my life on several occasions to save and protect not only atheist but Christians, without offer of heaven.  Now I must question the authenticity of your compassion.. Do you only offer this pseudo-compassion on basis of reward in heaven?

If you knew you weren't going to heaven would you still be willing to sacrifice your life for your fellow man? I doubt it and that's perhaps why you struggle with accepting there are those that would.

You don't understand compassion at all, you simply understand commidity.

Let's not forget our Buddhist/Atheist brethren.. Thich Quang Duc.

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Theist Daniel wrote:I'm glad

Theist Daniel wrote:

I'm glad to know that you do not consider yourselves violent, at least not yet.

But I am curious to know what code of moral law that you follow as an atheist that makes murder wrong, or that makes stealing wrong, or lying or cheating or deceiving wrong.

Are not your major tenants as follows?:

1. look out for number one

2. survival of the fittest

3. do unto others before they do unto you

4. live, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die (live it up and fear not to face judgement for it)

5. lie, cheat, steal trick and deceive as long as you can get away with it, just dont hurt anyone that you don't want to.

6. people are just animals, so use them and treat them as such unless it benefits you to treat them better.

7. good and bad is reletive; therefore for me it will be whatever I make it.

 

Where on earth did you come up with this bullshit? As there are no tenants to atheism it is safe to say that you are wrong on all seven counts.  You obviously don't even know what survival of the fittest means or else you would not have been so silly as to even try including it in your delusional ramblings. Survival of the fittest means that the organisms best suited for and most capable of obtaining resources in their environment will be the ones likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes.

Theist Daniel wrote:

It seems to me that any government baised upon such principals is doomed to failure and any society baised upon such would be unbearable to live in. Governments would constantly be overthrown and the people would have eachother to fear most of all. You can thank the forefathers of this nation that they built the laws of this country upon Biblical principals and morals. 

It does seem that way, doesn't it? Good thing that nobody, including atheists, have ever proposed such ludicrous nonsense as a basis for a government.

Theist Daniel wrote:

Now back to the more critical thing to consider. Have you ever used your super intellegent reasoning skills to consider that there must be a creator who created the delecate, intricate, and interdependent life on earth? Don't overlook that word interdependent.

Actually, the interdependency speaks volumes for evolution, not creation. Of course life that evolves on the same planet is going to be interdependent. Has your super delusional illogic ever caused you to consider why whales have vestigial hipbones? Have you ever speculated as to just how retarded a creator would be to place those useless hipbones there?

Theist Daniel wrote:

From what I have heard of Charles Darwin he finally came to admit at the end of his life that the theory of evolution is proven false by such intricate and interdependent things as the human eye.

Gosh, creationists are still teaching that lie? Are they still teaching the Lady Hope lie as well?  And here I thought that Christians were supposed to be more honest than atheists! Well, you just proved that wrong.

Theist Daniel wrote:

You see, the human eye has many aspects that would have to have evolved at the exact same time in order to prevent natural selection from ruling it out. Tear ducts, optic nerve, retna, lens, cones, rods, etc all had to evolve at the exact same time or natural selection would rule out the mutation from continuing. The chances that all the aspects of the eye mutated into exhistance at the exact same time is astronimacally small.

You see, if you had bothered checking facts instead of listening to the lies of your creationist brethren, you might have realized that this is utter rubbish. First, Darwin himself offered three pages of plausible evolutionary stages for the formation of eyes. It has been demonstrated in living organisms how a steady evolutionary progression from a single light sensitive cell straight through to the human eye can be possible. You should really try reading Dawkins sometime. He dedicated a nice chunk of the Blind Watchmaker to this subject.

But hey, if you really want to prove that god is a drooling Mongoloid, go right on giving him credit for the eye. Our blind spot, the fact that the rods and cones are backwards in humans, and the huge number of people that have to wear glasses because of the faulty nature of the eye shows us that any designer was a blithering idiot, much like his followers.

Theist Daniel wrote:

If you wish to reason and to consider more such evidences which prove that God created life on earth, then check into the Creation Research Institute.

No thanks. I've already reviewed their lies. I prefer to keep company with honest atheists.

 

 

 

 

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Survival of the

Quote:
Survival of the fittest means that the organisms best suited for and most capable of obtaining resources in their environment will be the ones likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes.

 Actually, "fitness" means something different in evolution than it does in everyday life.  "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that needs to be consigned to File 86.  For one thing, as far as natural selection goes, it's reproductive fitness that matters, and the lifespan of an existing organism is irrelevant, even compared to its peers.  In other words, a critter that lives for one year and produces twenty offspring is more reproductively fit than a critter that lives for five years and produces ten offspring.

For another thing, "Survival of the Fittest" has often produced various theses suggesting ways in which people killing other people is part of "nature's design," and other such nonsense.  As I said, natural selection is concerned with reproductive fitness.  It doesn't care if you kill the other males.  It cares if you produce more offspring than them.

Though it's kind of counter-intuitive, you could actually have an organism that used less resources but used them more efficiently, thus reproducing more, and it would be more fit, and its genes would survive better.

In short, there is absolutely NOTHING that can be derived from evolution that dictates a particular moral paradigm.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Theist-Daniel wrote:I can

Theist-Daniel wrote:

I can see that you have not stopped to throughly consider the character, nature and claims of God.

I have reflected long and hard on the evil nature of the Biblical god, and on what kind of mindset it would take to follow such a monster.

Theist-Daniel wrote:
He claims to be holy (pure from sin),

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Guess he isn't that free from sin after all.

Theist-Daniel wrote:
just (executes perfect justice),

Gen 12:17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

Abram lied about his wife, and God punishes the Pharoh? So much for perfect justice.

Theist-Daniel wrote:
gracious (gives to the unworthy),

Isa 13:15-18  Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Yeah, well, you didn't say what he gave to the unworthy, so I guess you win this one!

Theist-Daniel wrote:
merciful (desires to withhold judgement),

Num 11:1 And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it;   and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

What? He withheld punishment for all of 15 seconds?

Theist-Daniel wrote:
longsuffering (gives us time and space to repent),

Sam 6:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

They had time to say " Oops! "?

Theist-Daniel wrote:
loving (cares for us so much that he was was willing to die in our place),

Except that he didn't stay dead, so it wasn't a sacrifice, but rather a minor inconvenience. I must ask though, if the wage of sin is death, and Jesus died for our sins, why do we still die?

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Theist Daniel wrote:If you

Theist Daniel wrote:
If you wish to reason and to consider more such evidences which prove that God created life on earth, then check into the Creation Research Institute.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! You officially have zero ability to think critically. Congratulations, you're probably very good at being religious.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But I am curious to

Quote:
But I am curious to know what code of moral law that you follow as an atheist that makes murder wrong, or that makes stealing wrong, or lying or cheating or deceiving wrong.

Reason and inherent ethical ideals from biology. Moral relativism.

Quote:
Are not your major tenants as follows?:

1. look out for number one

2. survival of the fittest

3. do unto others before they do unto you

4. live, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die (live it up and fear not to face judgement for it)

5. lie, cheat, steal trick and deceive as long as you can get away with it, just dont hurt anyone that you don't want to.

6. people are just animals, so use them and treat them as such unless it benefits you to treat them better.

7. good and bad is reletive; therefore for me it will be whatever I make it.

You're funny.

Here's a tiny hint; there are no atheist tenants.  

Quote:
It seems to me that any government baised upon such principals is doomed to failure and any society baised upon such would be unbearable to live in.

Tell that to the Europeans on this forum.

Quote:
Governments would constantly be overthrown and the people would have eachother to fear most of all. You can thank the forefathers of this nation that they built the laws of this country upon Biblical principals and morals.

No, the Founding Fathers were first and foremost, secularists, not fundamentalist Christians. In fact, Thomas Jefferson is in hell right now.

Quote:
Now back to the more critical thing to consider. Have you ever used your super intellegent reasoning skills to consider that there must be a creator who created the delecate, intricate, and interdependent life on earth?

I have considered it many times, and the answer is no.

Quote:
Don't overlook that word interdependent.

What about it?

Quote:
From what I have heard of Charles Darwin he finally came to admit at the end of his life that the theory of evolution is proven false by such intricate and interdependent things as the human eye.

- quote mine.

- ad hominem.

- lying.

Quote:
Tear ducts, optic nerve, retna, lens, cones, rods, etc all had to evolve at the exact same time or natural selection would rule out the mutation from continuing. The chances that all the aspects of the eye mutated into exhistance at the exact same time is astronimacally small.

Irreducible complexity is long debunked. Go research some counter-arguments.

Quote:
If you wish to reason and to consider more such evidences which prove that God created life on earth, then check into the Creation Research Institute.

Don't they teach super-evolution? 

Theist-Daniel wrote:

I can see that you have not stopped to throughly consider the character, nature and claims of God.

Oh, really?

Quote:
If your're going to be rational, you have to consider all the claims that God has made and just what he would act like if they were all true.

That's a scary thought.

Quote:
That His holiness demands punishment for sin. (The wages of sin is death.)

Ah, yes, eternal punishment for eating shrimp.

Quote:
(Perhaps I should mention here that Hell was created for Lucifer (Satan) and for the angles that followed him in his rebellion in heaven to overthrow God. This was high treason since Lucifer was perhaps the highest ranking Cherub given the job of guarding over the holiness of God. Hell was not created for man. Nevertheless, it appears to me that man became worthy of the same punishment when he joined the rebellion through disobedience to God at Lucifer's advice.)

[sarcasm ]Gasp! I didn't know that. This information is completely new to me. Educating the heathens. Bravo![ /sarcasm] 

Quote:
That His mercy would find a way for mankind (which was tricked into the rebellion) to find forgiveness and pardon.

He will save us from himself.

Quote:
All men being born sinners, only Jesus (God the Son) could meet the requirement of a perfect sacrifice. It does no good for a sinner to die for a sinner, only the death of the sinless can count for the sinner.

Since Jesus never sinned, death could not hold him and he arose from the dead and is now at the right hand of the Father speaking on behalf of his "sheep".

Yawn.

Quote:
It is clear to me that only Jesus deserves to be "second in command".

Second in command? Why, don't you believe in the trinity? Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are supposed to be separate entities but, also one and the same, like "ice, water, and steam." They're all first in command. If you're arguing that Jesus is not equal to his father, then you're a blasphemer, and you're going to hell.

Quote:
No where in the Bible do I find Jesus instructing me to kill anyone.
 

"For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." Matthew 15:4

Quote:
On the contrary we find these instructions "love your enemys, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-slAgzJmdU

Quote:
If men would get to know Jesus (Americans, Arabs and Jews in particular) the resource wars could end.

Not really; even if everyone in the world converted to Christianity, there'd still be fierce fighting among the thousands of Christian denominations.

Quote:
Biblical moral code says that you don't covet, steal, cheat, kill, etc.)

The Bible also says you should be put to death for being homosexual, eating shellfish, working on Sunday, cursing your parents, etc.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Hey guys, check this out.

 Hey guys, check this out.  I'm going to post a link to an article that explains the origins of morality.  Our interlocutor is not going to read it, or having read it, is not going to understand it.  He's going to ignore it completely.

Here it is:

What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Yaerav
Bronze Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
Dunno springrain... I see

Dunno springrain... I see myself as part of humankind. Odds are that there are situations in which I would choose the well-being of "the group" over the well-being of myself- I could imagine some of them, although one never knows how one would act until such a situation arises.

I find real love in the here and now, in this one precious life I have, which is both path and goal. And have no need for a religion (besides: whích religion would that be? There are dozens of dozens of them, and every one of them sounds as unlikely as the other)

@ Daniel- Atheism does not have any tenets of itself. But I will try to comment on your list from my personal point of view:

For starters: "Looking out for number one" only goes so far: humans are not solitary creatures, and most of us need love and acceptance- which pure egoists are very likely to nót get.

Also, "survival of the fittest" is a silly "tenet". Because: what is "fittest"? Fittest for what? Fittest in which situation? Besides, society need all kinds of different people, talents and viewpoints. A society with lots of variation among the members is, in my humble opinion, a strong- or, if you will, a "fit" one.

Society is also what determines what is considered to be "good" and "evil". Read the Old Testament for pretty twisted versions of "good" and  "evil".

As for "people are animals"... yes we are. We are social animals with the rather unique feats of self-awareness, reason, complex communication, imagination, stamina and dexterity. But what does that mean?

Well, I can tell you what it means for mé. As I wrote earlier, I consider myself to be part of humankind. But I also consider humankind to be part of nature, and to me it is very important that there is no real divide between us and other life- and especially between us and other animals: all animals are able to feel pain, fear, anger, contentment, and it is becoming ever clearer that many creatures perceive far more complex emotions as well. To me hurting animals seems very much alike to hurting people, and that fact that humans are omnivores fortunately gives me the choice to not use animals for food. I greatly respect the world around me because not only is it my home, it is the home of trillions of others, who deserve as good a life as I.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Also, "survival of

 

Quote:
Also, "survival of the fittest" is a silly "tenet". Because: what is "fittest"? Fittest for what? Fittest in which situation? Besides, society need all kinds of different people, talents and viewpoints. A society with lots of variation among the members is, in my humble opinion, a strong- or, if you will, a "fit" one.

I already answered this from an evolutionary standpoint.  If "survival of the fittest" has any scientific meaning, it is referring to genes, not organisms.  The fittest genes are the ones that produce organisms that reproduce the most effectively.  That's it.  Period.  End of story.

"Survival of the fittest" has nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to do with politics, eugenics, morality, or anything else at the level of social organization.

In natural selection, there are things called "fitness indicators."  The peacock's tail is one of the best known examples.  Unfortunately, people get things a little bit confused.  The tail is the result of a rather complicated set of interacting and opposing forces.  In function, it's a lie detector.  If a peacock has managed to survive to adulthood carrying that gaudy predator-magnet around, there's a good chance that its offspring will also have a good chance of surviving to adulthood.

This is all well and good, and most people get it, but what they don't get is that the peacock's tail doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his own life, or his ability to get food, or to compete with other males, or anything else.  Somewhere tens of thousands of generations back, peahens began selecting males for the gaudiness of their tails.  It could have been anything else, like bands of color on their legs or spots around their eyes.  The actual fitness indicator doesn't indicate survival fitness directly.  It indicates enough resources to keep the indicator long enough to reproduce.  In the example of a peacock, if a male is devoured by a predator ten minutes after copulation, and it was a direct result of having that big-ass tail, then from an individual survival point of view, the tail was a hindrance.  From a reproductive point of view, it has done its job.

Quote:
Society is also what determines what is considered to be "good" and "evil". Read the Old Testament for pretty twisted versions of "good" and  "evil".

Well, not exactly.  Society is a filter through which our moral instincts are honed and refined, but without society, we still have these instincts.  Have you read my essay on this subject?

What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!

Quote:
As for "people are animals"... yes we are. We are social animals with the rather unique feats of self-awareness, reason, complex communication, imagination, stamina and dexterity. But what does that mean?

Funny... I've written an article about this, too...

Free Will: Why we don't have it, and why that's a good thing.

And another one...

For New Atheists: Is This Really All There Is?

Quote:
To me hurting animals seems very much alike to hurting people, and that fact that humans are omnivores fortunately gives me the choice to not use animals for food.

In that first essay, I address human empathy towards animals.  You really should give it a look.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Yaerav
Bronze Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
I have perused the articles-

I have perused the articles- been a while though, but good reads- little tough for non-native speakers of English, but great discussion pieces! I am still half hopeful that Daniel will not ignore them.

In my post I tried to avoid writing about evolution for once and focus on society and my personal moral outlook (which is of course just the outlook of some random guy who also happens to be an atheist- and just as anal about his personal principles as christians, but at least honest about it Eye-wink )


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 No worries, Yaerav.  I

 No worries, Yaerav.  I definitely wrote those for readers who are highly proficient in English.

My main issue is that "survival of the fittest" is ONLY about evolution.  As I mentioned, it simply doesn't mean what most people think it means.  I wish people who know what it means would only use it in the proper context.  If so, maybe we'd stop hearing about how evolution was the basis for Hitler's ideas.

Admittedly, I get my panties in a bunch over a few words and phrases, but as you've probably noticed, I'm more of a stickler for definitions than most people.  I believe most of  the disagreements in the world have at least something to do with a misunderstanding of definitions.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Yaerav
Bronze Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
I had to mull over it for a

I had to mull over it for a night, but I think I do not completely agree with everything you wrote

First reason is that while you (correctly, of course) identify the argument as fallacious, this does not really adress the argument Daniel tries to cover with the fallacy- which is basically "Atheists are selfish and evil".

But of course the fact is that misconstruing "survival of the fittest" does not work: even in the context Daniel uses the phrase, it is simply silly since "fit" can still mean anything.

Second, related, reason is that I think that "survival of the fittest" works for more then simply evolution in a biological sense- for example, "fit" memes are better at surviving then "unfit" memes. But when it comes to memes, I find the words "fit" and "unfit" especially interesting
Related to this are social mechanisms: "fit" societies survive and "unfit" ones disintegrate. I think that how societies function is for a large part based on nature (genes) and nurture (memes?), and for me that means that I have to disagree with "Survival of the fittest" having absolutely nothing to do with anything at the level of social organization. But that does, of course, not make Daniel's argument valid in any way, unless he can make a compelling argument about what he takes to be the meaning of "fitness".


But there is something else to this as well, and that is the question "how desirable is it to be 'fit'? "
What I mean is that it is perfectly possible to live a wonderful, fulfilling life without being "fit" in an evolutionary sense. Take for example a duck who, for some reason, does not feel compelled to keep her eggs warm at the cost of not being to able to forage for food. Such a duck would be hungry for weeks on end, and possibly be healthier and happier then ducks who dó make a personal sacrifice for the benefit of their offspring.

In an evolutionary sense, this duck would be called "unfit"- but the duck would be the last one to care: in a práctical sense, she acts more "sensible" (if such a word can be used for ducks Eye-wink ) then others of her kind. And sure, she will not pass on her "sensible genes"- but does that really mean that she is less succesful?

(btw, I stole the duck-example from Bas Haring, who is my favourite "disciple" of Daniel Dennett, and who also, I think, coined the phrase "Some of the most beautiful roads are dead ends, but that does not make them any less beautiful" )

If I can muster the time and the will, I think I might have a couple of comments for the "what does sugar have to do with murder" column as well- all more or less related to what I just wrote, of course.

Quote:
Society is a filter through which our moral instincts are honed and refined, but without society, we still have these instincts

had to quote this bit, I like it- and I also disagree with it Eye-wink . I do see societies as "superorganisms". Which also means that I think that our ability to function in complex social environments should have evolved together with these same social environments. What I mean to say is that I think that the instincts you write about cannot be considered apart from society: we shape society and society shapes us... hm, actually, maybe it would not even be overly weird to call memes the "genes of the social superorganism"- we just carry the memes like our cells carry our genes.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Humanity will not find peace

Humanity will not find peace untill the idea of "blood cults" based on the worship of the state or god, become dead memes.

There are no chosen people. There is no master race. Their is no magical day or month deity that magically gives a dictator or president power. The janitor, cleric, Pope, President, fry cook, will all eventually die.

Quit crossing your fingers with the false 4 leaf clover books of antique myths. Don't blindly worship a politicain or celebrity or religious figure. Dont seek a fascist utopia via force of government. Don't expect all 6 billion people to be a clone of you or your religion or your nation.

We are all the same species. We all want love. We all want a home. We all want shelter. We all want a means to survive and a voice. Unless we stop treating detractors as being of a different species, we will always have the ability to commit the cruelist of acts.

Good deeds are not magical nor do they require one day to do them. We can all do something small every day to let our neighbors know that we are all in the same boat with one planet to live on.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Who here with children would

Who here with children would hire a baby sitter with the same "selective" track record as the claimed super hero theists claim?

Could you see that interview?

Parent, "So how many children have you sat before?"

Sitter, " A couple thousand. Some I let run away. Some I let play with guns with no safty. Some I punished for playing with the guns. Some I let get molested. Some I saved from being molested. Some I took to houses with led paint and let them eat it. Some I didn't feed or change, some I did."

WHAT KIND OF F-LOGIC IS THAT? No one in their right mind would allow such cruelty if they knew before hand they could stop it.

Could I get a mod to move this post to my 3year old w/cancer thread. I didn't realize which thread I was in. Sorry guys.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:But of course the

 

Quote:
But of course the fact is that misconstruing "survival of the fittest" does not work: even in the context Daniel uses the phrase, it is simply silly since "fit" can still mean anything.

What I'm apparently not conveying well is that "survival of the fittest" is part of evolution, but it only works with reproductive fitness.  If we try to use any other meaning of "fit" in the evolutionary principle, it is unworkable.  The popular notion of "survival of the fittest" is attributed to Darwin, so if someone is using fit in another way, they're just spouting nonsense.

So, when someone talks about survival of the fittest, they mean one of two things:

1) Evolutionary survival of the most reproductively fit

2) Something with no basis in fact.

Quote:
Second, related, reason is that I think that "survival of the fittest" works for more then simply evolution in a biological sense- for example, "fit" memes are better at surviving then "unfit" memes. But when it comes to memes, I find the words "fit" and "unfit" especially interesting

I have yet to see anyone make a meaningful analogy between genes and memes.  For that matter, I have yet to see a coherent definition of a meme that includes a unit of reproduction.  

Quote:
Related to this are social mechanisms: "fit" societies survive and "unfit" ones disintegrate. I think that how societies function is for a large part based on nature (genes) and nurture (memes?), and for me that means that I have to disagree with "Survival of the fittest" having absolutely nothing to do with anything at the level of social organization. But that does, of course, not make Daniel's argument valid in any way, unless he can make a compelling argument about what he takes to be the meaning of "fitness".

If we just take the word "fitness" out of the equation, we can do this a lot better.  I call it the law of "survival of the best able to survive."  This broad (and almost tautological) statement basically just asserts that in any system in which some things survive and others don't, the ones that are best equipped to survive (in whatever way) tend to survive.

There are still problems, though, because the definition has to be so broad as to be nonsensical for it to work. 

Quote:
But there is something else to this as well, and that is the question "how desirable is it to be 'fit'? "

What I mean is that it is perfectly possible to live a wonderful, fulfilling life without being "fit" in an evolutionary sense. Take for example a duck who, for some reason, does not feel compelled to keep her eggs warm at the cost of not being to able to forage for food. Such a duck would be hungry for weeks on end, and possibly be healthier and happier then ducks who dó make a personal sacrifice for the benefit of their offspring.

In an evolutionary sense, this duck would be called "unfit"- but the duck would be the last one to care: in a práctical sense, she acts more "sensible" (if such a word can be used for ducks Eye-wink&nbspEye-wink then others of her kind. And sure, she will not pass on her "sensible genes"- but does that really mean that she is less succesful?

You're making my case quite well.  Survival of the fittest doesn't apply at the level of personal fulfillment or happiness.  That's what I've been saying all along.  I don't have any children, and I've been surgically altered such that I won't be having any.  My genetic line is going to die out, so I am unfit.  Curiously, I'm quite good at personal survival and happiness.  I'm also a shrewd businessman.  Go figure.

Quote:
If I can muster the time and the will, I think I might have a couple of comments for the "what does sugar have to do with murder" column as well- all more or less related to what I just wrote, of course.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Quote:
had to quote this bit, I like it- and I also disagree with it Eye-wink . I do see societies as "superorganisms". Which also means that I think that our ability to function in complex social environments should have evolved together with these same social environments. What I mean to say is that I think that the instincts you write about cannot be considered apart from society: we shape society and society shapes us... hm, actually, maybe it would not even be overly weird to call memes the "genes of the social superorganism"- we just carry the memes like our cells carry our genes.

I don't mean to separate society form individuals.  I mean to say that whatever society we happen to be a part of is the filter through which our individual instincts and morals are shaped.  A feral human alone in the woods has the same moral instincts as you or me, but he does not have the benefit of socialization, so he will be closer to what we could call "instinctively moral" than someone raised in a society.

Yes, our moral instincts evolved as our social nature evolved.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattheTheAtheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
There are atheists in

There are atheists in foxholes.


Tom Gray (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Would atheists die for one another

First off atheists don't start fights or wars we don't even hold meetings you don't see any atheist channels on tv do you yet their are an enormous amount of religious channels spoiling good tv.We are a brotherhood of social realists that know that a god does not exist yet we are socially responsible people. If dying meant something like maybe a trip around the universe i might consider it but we all know dying only makes you insect food with no 40 virgins or living a second life in heaven,so whats the sense in shortening your life any more than this planet allows.So lets all be good for goodness sake and throw all this nonsense about gods out the window. BE HAPPY,DON'T WORRY


Tom Gray (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
idiotic beliefs

 

The churches are now saying evolution is also true So does that mean that adam and eve were the two apes in loin cloths. Or maybe god picked up a handful of dirt to wipe his... and made the first amoeba and called it adam and said some day you will "become " a man.....There are no gods, devils, ghosts, spirits,easter bunnies, leprecauns,tooth fairies. Some people learn these things before they grow up what is your excuse for being delusional? Does anyone answer you when you pray? If you say yes then you must know why god won't heel amputees. Don't you think they pray for new limbs. Why aren't their prayers answered,instead of yours?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
How did I miss this topic?

How did I miss this topic? Grr.

Theist Daniel wrote:

I'm glad to know that you do not consider yourselves violent, at least not yet.

Just so you know, our violence is likely to increase with the violence of theists. So if we ever do go around killing people, you can blame yourself for starting it.

Theist Daniel wrote:

But I am curious to know what code of moral law that you follow as an atheist that makes murder wrong, or that makes stealing wrong, or lying or cheating or deceiving wrong.

There's no such thing as a moral law. Morality is subjective. What is good and right for me is evil and wrong for you, and vice versa.

Theist Daniel wrote:
Are not your major tenants as follows?:

1. look out for number one

2. survival of the fittest

3. do unto others before they do unto you

4. live, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die (live it up and fear not to face judgement for it)

5. lie, cheat, steal trick and deceive as long as you can get away with it, just dont hurt anyone that you don't want to.

6. people are just animals, so use them and treat them as such unless it benefits you to treat them better.

7. good and bad is reletive; therefore for me it will be whatever I make it.

No. Those are not tenets of atheist morals. There's no such thing as a list of atheist morals. Everyone has their own morality.

 

Theist Daniel wrote:

It seems to me that any government baised upon such principals is doomed to failure and any society baised upon such would be unbearable to live in. Governments would constantly be overthrown and the people would have eachother to fear most of all. You can thank the forefathers of this nation that they built the laws of this country upon Biblical principals and morals.

Ironically, it is the theist government that most closely approximates the morals you suggested above. So you're arguing against yourself here. Congrats on a job well done. Smiling

Theist Daniel wrote:

Now back to the more critical thing to consider. Have you ever used your super intellegent

Sarcasm is unbecoming.

Theist Daniel wrote:
 reasoning skills to consider that there must be a creator who created the delecate, intricate, and interdependent life on earth?

There's nothing delicate about life on earth. Life is the strongest force we are aware of short of a gamma ray or supernova. Life has survived impact after impact, catastrophe after catastrophe, and it's still covering the entire surface.

Any life forms that are interdependant with others have evolved that way, it had nothing to do with your invisible friend.

As for intracacy, that just shows how your god is unlikely, not the reverse. A god with infinate power could have created a stable system out of simplicity. Complexity argues against a creator.

Theist Daniel wrote:
 Don't overlook that word interdependent.

I blasted it away. There's nothing left to look at.

Theist Daniel wrote:
 From what I have heard of Charles Darwin he finally came to admit at the end of his life that the theory of evolution is proven false by such intricate and interdependent things as the human eye.

In other words you've only been listening to idiots like Michael Behe. You don't know the first thing about evolution.

Theist Daniel wrote:
 You see, the human eye has many aspects that would have to have evolved at the exact same time in order to prevent natural selection from ruling it out.

False. I'd let you go on, but I've heard this drivel far too many times to read through it again. Irreducible complexity has been proven wrong, ad absurdum. Look at the talk origins website for the debunking of everything else you said here.

Theist Daniel wrote:
Creation Research Institute.

*Snort*

Try going to a real school or institute for once. Not that pathetic example of believing in magic.

 

Theist Daniel wrote:

Seek the Lord Jesus while He may be found, call upon Him while He is still near. He can be you saviour now or you judge at the Great White Throne judgement. Please consider these thins before its to late.

Isaiah 1:18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

 

Yada yada yada. You have no idea how old and tired this crap is.

Theist-Daniel wrote:

I can see that you have not stopped to throughly consider the character, nature and claims of God.

I can see that you have not stopped to thoroughly consider the fact that your god doesn't exist, does not have character, and does not have a nature.

Theist-Daniel wrote:

If your're going to be rational, you have to consider all the claims that God has made and just what he would act like if they were all true.


 

Wrong. If you're going to be rational, you have to accept that you cannot prove gods existance. You're going to have to study logic. And you're going to have to divorce yourself from the false religion you follow.

Theist-Daniel wrote:
He claims to be holy (pure from sin), just (executes perfect justice), gracious (gives to the unworthy), merciful (desires to withhold judgement), longsuffering (gives us time and space to repent), loving (cares for us so much that he was was willing to die in our place), etc.

Self contradictory and literally impossible. You fail. Try again.

Theist-Daniel wrote:
Just from the handful of His atributes that I mentioned above, we could easily consider the following:

That His holiness demands punishment for sin. (The wages of sin is death.)

Sin is a creation of religion. It does not exist, except as a fictional tool for the use of a theist.

Theist-Daniel wrote:
That His justice demands that the proper judgement be executed.(Perhaps I should mention here that Hell was created for Lucifer (Satan) and for the angles that followed him in his rebellion in heaven to overthrow God.

Perhaps I should mention that lucifer was a creation of the church hundreds of years after the church existed? That your satan is just as fictional as your god? As your heaven and hell?

Theist-Daniel wrote:
This was high treason since Lucifer was perhaps the highest ranking Cherub given the job of guarding over the holiness of God. Hell was not created for man. Nevertheless, it appears to me that man became worthy of the same punishment when he joined the rebellion through disobedience to God at Lucifer's advice.)

Amazing how solidly you believe in a story. I recommend to you Star Wars. It has a better story, better moral teachings, and is a shitload more entertaining to boot.

Theist-Daniel wrote:
That His mercy would find a way for mankind (which was tricked into the rebellion) to find forgiveness and pardon.

*Skims through the standard bs to any meat remaining..*

Damn. No meat left. Next post....

Damn. No more posts left to ridicule in this topic. On to the next....

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: You mean

Hambydammit wrote:

 You mean Rambo-Kitty?

Yeah, I think you've missed something here.  I'm a pacifist.  Really.

Rambo-Kitty is a metaphor, you see.  You're familiar with the saying "Curiosity killed the cat," right?  Well, this curious cat kills irrationality through the power of science and reason.

Sorry, kiddo.  Read some of my posts.  I'm about as anti-violence as it gets, and I'm also about the most easy going person on the boards.  Show some imagination, ok?  It's like... you know... literary... and shit.

 

What the fuck? You mean atheists cant rape and pillage at will? We have to have morals? SON OF A BITCH!

I had all these kittens to barbaque and you spoil the party.

KILLJOY!

(Note to self: Did I think that, or type it?)

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
spring_rain@insight.rr.com

spring_rain@insight.rr.com wrote:

My home is in heaven and I am only here on a journey.

 

Precisely. You're just a tourist, but I actually live here. So stop trying to tell me where the best pizza joint is.

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
djneibarger

djneibarger wrote:

spring_rain@insight.rr.com wrote:

My home is in heaven and I am only here on a journey.

Precisely. You're just a tourist, but I actually live here. So stop trying to tell me where the best pizza joint is.

Lmao. You officially win!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
djneibarger

djneibarger wrote:

spring_rain@insight.rr.com wrote:

My home is in heaven and I am only here on a journey.

 

Precisely. You're just a tourist, but I actually live here. So stop trying to tell me where the best pizza joint is.

They cant because, while theists and atheists agree that the species are just a "tourist", the reason they cant stop promoting the "best pizza joint" is because it is one they think we have to die to get to. The fact remains that the only pizza joints that exist are the ones that are real.

Which gives me pause to advise callers ordering pizza on a busy Friday night. Having worked at a major pizza chain, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF THOR, DO NOT CALL US UP AND THEN SPEND 20 MINS ASKING EVERYONE ELSE IN THE BACKGROUND WHAT FUCKING TOPPINGS THEY WANT ON THEIR PIZZA!

I have hung up on your asses and would advise any pizza joint to do the same. MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND BEFORE YOU CALL US!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
djneibarger

djneibarger wrote:

spring_rain@insight.rr.com wrote:

My home is in heaven and I am only here on a journey.

 

Precisely. You're just a tourist, but I actually live here. So stop trying to tell me where the best pizza joint is.

ROTF. Now there's a comment I'm going to have to remember.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Diagoras23
atheist
Diagoras23's picture
Posts: 77
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheists in Foxholes

MattheTheAtheist wrote:

There are atheists in foxholes.

If I may address this one.

Yes. We are in foxholes and we are the best.

If you want cool, calm, decision making that avoids civillian casualties and completes the mission. You want atheist soldiers.

If you want crazy, unstable, unpredictable, freaked out, soldiers that believe they are magically protected by god, and are motivated by righteous religious blood thirsty hate. You want religious soldiers.

First hand experience here.

Actually there are no atheists in foxholes, as they intelligently prefer a mobile defence and are conducting a flanking attack on the enemy forces instead of praying in fox holes.

Best leave the religious soldiers behind. The enemies children tend to not get slaughtered in the media as much.

No atheists in fox holes indeed.

Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Diagoras23 wrote:Best leave

Diagoras23 wrote:

Best leave the religious soldiers behind. The enemies children tend to not get slaughtered in the media as much.

I don't know. They make good fodder.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


SevenScarletSharks
SevenScarletSharks's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2009-08-01
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:

From: spring_rain@insight.rr.com

In the Bible I read that God is not just angry every day with the wicked, but also that he is truthful, loving, kind, just, peaceable, long suffering, etc. As I am typing this I see in the upper left hand corner of your web page what appears to be your mascot...an angry cat wearing your badge and eager to kill someone. Only in Jesus do I find real love...He humbled himself taking on the form of a man only to suffer and die to pay the price for the sins of mankind. Would you die for each other if it made a difference? I doubt that you would because most atheists believe in survival of the fittest. You live in a sad world where there is only sorrow, suffering and death to look forward to. My home is in heaven and I am only here on a journey. Wouldn’t it be worth your time to consider what God would be like if all of his claims were true? If he is both just and loving, then doesn’t it make sense that he must punish unrepentant sinners (His justice) but that he would go to the ninth degree to make a way for men to be forgiven if they will repent? (His love)

 

Hi spring_rain, 

In the Bible I read that God has massive mood swings from humble and loving to homicidal and narcissistic. Read your Bible carefully (the whole thing, not just the happy-pill parts) and try to explain the "justice" in the mass murders that he has either carried out directly or instructed his followers to carry out. Many people who de-convert from Christianity do so after reading the immoral activity that was previously unknown to them. 

Jesus' sacrifice is meaningless, it's not even a sacrifice. God essentially "sacrificed" himself to himself to create a loophole in the laws that he created. His incarnation suffers a little while and then gets to go to his Playboy Mansion in the sky and be God. Oh, and Jesus is both God and God's son at the same time. Yeah, that makes lots of logistical sense. (Sarcasm.)

An atheist would perhaps die for someone they care about, it is possible. However, self-sacrifice has nothing to do with what religious affiliation you have. Atheists and other freethinkers know that this lifetime is their only definite lifetime and they want to live it to the fullest instead of wasting it "preparing" for a hypothetical afterlife. 

You also assume that all atheists think only about themselves and are evolution-worshippers. We don't worship evolution. We don't worship anything. I know that this can be a bit hard for some people to wrap their minds around, but worship is not essential to human existence. Now that that's over with, you should also know that atheists are just as charitable as theists. Atheists give money to charity just as much as theists do - but we prefer to give our money to charities where we can be certain it's going to be used for good and not just to help a televangelist buy a new Ferrari. 

The "survival of the fittest" rule you speak of has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection shows that organisms unsuited to their environment will die out while organisms that are more suited to their environment will survive and produce more offspring. Atheists don't adhere by this as a dogma; it is a scientific fact. 

In addition, you claim that atheists live in a world of sorrow, sadness, depression, etc. How do you know this? I'm an atheist and I'm happy with my life. I am definitely not depressed. Also, what gives you the authority to say that certain people are feeling certain ways? Death is not a big deal for me; I don't want it to come prematurely but I don't fear it either. Studies show that if anything, theists are more afraid of death than atheists are. 

If all of the Bible's claims were true, then we'd be Christians already. The fact that we're not proves that we've found flaws in your dogma. 

No finite "crime" deserves infinite punishment. This is unethical and cruel, and hardly constitutes as justice. In fact, Hell is the sheer opposite of it. Would you burn a loved child or pet in fire for all eternity if it bit you? 

Think for yourself, question everything. 

Sincerely, 

SevenScarletSharks

SevenScarletSharks reserves the right to be better than you.