WHY AM I AN ATHEIST???

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
WHY AM I AN ATHEIST???

WHY AM I AN ATHEIST???

I was asking a person on here to show me the path of their apostasy. After refuting the first objection, it appears he did not want to continue down the path of his objections.

99% of all atheists are atheists for 2 reasons. And 100% of atheists are atheists due to emotional reactions. The two reasons to be an atheist is:

1) Pain and Suffereing = My Dad or Mom abused me, or Dad died when I was 7. 

2) Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll = I wanna tap that, oh, I feel so guilty, oh, there is no God, oh, I don't feel guilty.

There is generally a 3rd reason, but it is rare and surround money. So I will not discuss that. 

So, for you apostates that did become a pagan or heretic, what were your intellectual objections. And for you reprobates who are pagans and never professed Christianity, what are your objections.

Now of course some if not all are going to say PROOF. LOL. I've discussed this until the cows came home. But we can address my arguments again on proof if need be. 

But really, it would be interesting to do a machine gun approach as to your objections. You're obviously going to be stubborn when I refute you, so upon refutation, perhaps we can call it good, and continue on down the line. 

Oh, and please keep it on the intellectual. I know that is difficult for atheists and Public School grown ups. but try. 

The objections can be internall, externally, philosophically, scientifically, theologically, anything. You guys love this. Putting the Christian on the defense. I am putting myself on the defense. But I am limited to the speed of typing, so be patient.

So, what is the first objection to the denial of, shall we say all of theism and specify after that, Chritsianity specifically. 

Good Luck! 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:WHY AM I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

WHY AM I AN ATHEIST???

I was asking a person on here to show me the path of their apostasy. After refuting the first objection, it appears he did not want to continue down the path of his objections.

99% of all atheists are atheists for 2 reasons. And 100% of atheists are atheists due to emotional reactions. The two reasons to be an atheist is:

1) Pain and Suffereing = My Dad or Mom abused me, or Dad died when I was 7. 

2) Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll = I wanna tap that, oh, I feel so guilty, oh, there is no God, oh, I don't feel guilty.

There is generally a 3rd reason, but it is rare and surround money. So I will not discuss that. 

So, for you apostates that did become a pagan or heretic, what were your intellectual objections. And for you reprobates who are pagans and never professed Christianity, what are your objections.

Now of course some if not all are going to say PROOF. LOL. I've discussed this until the cows came home. But we can address my arguments again on proof if need be. 

But really, it would be interesting to do a machine gun approach as to your objections. You're obviously going to be stubborn when I refute you, so upon refutation, perhaps we can call it good, and continue on down the line. 

Oh, and please keep it on the intellectual. I know that is difficult for atheists and Public School grown ups. but try. 

The objections can be internall, externally, philosophically, scientifically, theologically, anything. You guys love this. Putting the Christian on the defense. I am putting myself on the defense. But I am limited to the speed of typing, so be patient.

So, what is the first objection to the denial of, shall we say all of theism and specify after that, Chritsianity specifically. 

Good Luck! 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

Bullshit.

Pain and suffering exist and are part of biological life and do not need to be explained by ancient myth anymore than tornado's need to be explained by pink unicorns.

If I touch a hot stove I will feel pain, because of heat, not comic book villains. Humans treating other humans well or badly have nothing to do with Allah, Vishnu, Thor or Jesus.

Katherine Hepburn was an atheist. Angelina Jolie is an atheist and Bill Gates is an atheist. I am quite sure they were not atheists because they "suffered". They've done quite well and I am sure have the same happiness and sadness as any other human.

You are making yourself look like a fool. Your god is not needed to live life. The moon is not made of cheese and the earth is not flat. Suffering and happiness are a result of nature and evolution, not your mythological pet deity.

Black holes exist. Volcanos exist. Pleasure and pain exist. None of the good or bad that happen in life require your god or any for that matter.

Try again dip shit.

 

 

"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


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

So, what was your first objection in theism general? And then Christianity specifically. The moon is blue cheese? Well, Chrisitans don't believe the moon is blue cheese. Oh, actually and historically, people said the moon was green cheese.

The first objection was easy. That's why you became an atheist, because you thought Christians thought the moon was blue cheese.

What was your 2nd objection Brian?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I graduated from the same

I graduated from the same College that Jerry Falwell failed out of. DAMNED LIBERAL COLLEGES!

Public schools failure again, are because of lack of caring on society's part, not because of fictional beings. China has public schools too, so if we go by your god model then your god, once again is doing a piss poor job helping out his fans.

God seems to love China, right now. That or there is no god and humans are a result of evolution and our current state is due to human behavior, not magic or fictional beings.

The moon is not made of cheese. The earth is not flat, and a pet invisible friend by any name, is not needed to explain anything in life, good or bad.

 

 

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

So, what was your first objection in theism general? And then Christianity specifically. The moon is blue cheese? Well, Chrisitans don't believe the moon is blue cheese. Oh, actually and historically, people said the moon was green cheese.

The first objection was easy. That's why you became an atheist, because you thought Christians thought the moon was blue cheese.

What was your 2nd objection Brian?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Still stuck on Putt Putt thinking and that damned windmill, aren't you?

I know my keyboard works, so the only other option is that your brain doesn't.

Your god is not needed to explain either the good or bad that happen in life. Just like pink unicorns are not needed to explain tornados.

You objected to the essay because someone picked on your fictional pet deity.

The stork doesn't fly babies to your house and Santa isn't real and neither is your god. Neither is Allah or Thor.

You think you are on the green next to the cup, but the truth is you are stuck on the first Putt Putt hole swinging with no club.

I don't know how I can dumb it down anymore than that for you. I'd try a Where's Waldo pop up book for you but I think the colors would give you seizures.

 

 

 

"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


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Brian

Brian,

I don't know what you're talking about. In logic, if God created all, and all is sometimes good, then logically God created sometimes good. The same goes for bad or evil.

But that's not an objection. Please, what is your intellectual objection to theism in GENERAL and then Christianity specifically. I will not continue to answer foolishness. 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Brian,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Brian,

I don't know what you're talking about. In logic, if God created all, and all is sometimes good, then logically God created sometimes good. The same goes for bad or evil.

But that's not an objection. Please, what is your intellectual objection to theism in GENERAL and then Christianity specifically. I will not continue to answer foolishness. 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

So not only do you admit and have claimed that Japan was an example to us. You admit to a god who you claim is willing to allow harm to others to serve as a warning to me. You advocate third party hostage taking. So why should I be socked to your admission that god does evil too.

I agree according to you, not me, but yea, you can find verses in the bible that justify a god who does both. SO?

Isiah 45:7 "I create good, I create evil, I the lord do all these things".

YEA, so?

I agree that claimants of your fictional being can and do justify why bad things happen. But that is the same circular reasoning all religions use. "My holy book says".

It gives me more reasons to reject such a fictional being.

Mainly and most importantly even before you get to the alleged morality of your pet claim, you have no evidence that a thought can arise out of a non material process.

SECONDLY

Such a claim of this kind of morality is horrible. It is not the behavior of a empathetic rational being. If I had a child and allowed it to drink poison and watched it do so and then blamed it for what I could have prevented, child protective services would have me arrested and brought up on charges.

Circular reasoning, scientific absurdity are the main reasons, but the morality of your deadbeat of a fictional claim even compounds the problem with such claims.

You ADMIT that Japan, a third party, according to you, not me, suffered to serve as a warning to me. That is hostage taking and is completely immoral.

Unlike you, I see the tsunami as caused by a natural event that no magical being allowed or caused, much less one used to threaten me. The tsunami happened because earthquakes happen. NO magic needed. No fictional being needed. Much less the immoral prick you want to try to sell us.

Your fictional god claim is about as impressive as taking a dump. At least feces can be used as fertilizer. Your crap can only be used spread division and hate.

 

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Brian,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Brian,

I don't know what you're talking about. In logic, if God created all, and all is sometimes good, then logically God created sometimes good. The same goes for bad or evil.

But that's not an objection. Please, what is your intellectual objection to theism in GENERAL and then Christianity specifically. I will not continue to answer foolishness. 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

Yea, sure you will. I could only wish that you'd stop posting here, but you will respond to me again. You cant resist defending your pet tyrant of a claim.

Whats with your daddy, doesn't seem to be doing a good job stopping me, much less the Chinese.

You started this thread because of me. I doubt you'll stop responding to me. It would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

You don't want to answer me because you are having your ass handed to you.

"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


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

I did not start this thread because of you, What?

also, I never said God did the evil in Japan. He created the evil and Satan was the agent of that evil, or the world (entropy, for example, etc). You misquote on purpose.

You are not on topic with the thread.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Johnny lad,I became an

Johnny lad,

I became an atheist after a careful study of Scripture.

Why are you an occultist who calls himself a Calvinist?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

I did not start this thread because of you, What?

also, I never said God did the evil in Japan. He created the evil and Satan was the agent of that evil, or the world (entropy, for example, etc). You misquote on purpose.

You are not on topic with the thread.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

That got your attention. OH WAIT, I thought you weren't talking to me.

You started this thread because someone picked on your sky daddy. I backed them up and that pissed you off.

God created Satan so you admit that god created evil and thus because of God's evil the Japanese suffered to get to me. Sick as a immoral claim.

God having a minion named Satan doesn't change the fact that God being all powerful did not have to allow Satan. I am sure the 13,000 dead in Japan are so fucking happy about that.

Missing the point that God allows both, even when he has the power to stop it. You are not going to find very many Japanese related to those 13,000 dead to buy your bullshit logic.

The cause of the tsunami was the result of an earthquake, not God, or Satan, or God allowing Satan to exist. The tsunami happened because of nature, not comic book super heros or comic book villains.

The tsunami was not the result of Satan or Lex Luthor, or pink unicorns. The tsunami was a result of an earthquake. Neither Satan or God are needed to explain WHY earthquakes happen.

You "God is the cause of good and evil, and or allows good or evil"

ME, "No, you are just a comic book fan who likes the idea of super heros vs super villains".

You could claim that Obe Wan allowed Darth Vader to use the Dark Side of the force and you'd have the same amount of evidence.

Fiction is fiction no mater how you slice it.

How does it feel to be property Fido? Remember, you aren't talking to me Fido.

 

 

 

"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: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Johnny lad,I

jcgadfly wrote:

Johnny lad,

I became an atheist after a careful study of Scripture.

Why are you an occultist who calls himself a Calvinist?

Why do people believe in big foot? Why do people believe the moon landing was faked? Why do people use Ouija Boards?

Jean likes his pet claim and he clings to it like an alcoholic clings to booze, not because it is actually good for him, but because it makes him feel good.

 

"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


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

I am a very difficult person to get offended. It's almost impossible to offend me in discussion. I've seen it all before. It's almost a pattent of absurdity.

JCG, I asked for specifics. Also, what about theism in general. New Age, etc. The Calvin in the occult think was just a smirk.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

I am a very difficult person to get offended. It's almost impossible to offend me in discussion. I've seen it all before. It's almost a pattent of absurdity.

JCG, I asked for specifics. Also, what about theism in general. New Age, etc. The Calvin in the occult think was just a smirk.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Prayer=depending on the purpose can be spellcasting or invocation.

Anointing=invocation

Baptism=purification ritual.

Christianity seems pretty much like an occult practice to me - your God is just popular at the moment.

Check the "Atheist musicians" thread for my specifics - I saw it first.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
I became an atheist from

I became an atheist from examining the Bible too closely.  Nothing more, nothing less.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

I became an atheist from examining the Bible too closely.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Yep.

If it were not written back then but suddenly today and put in a bookstore next to Harry Potter the two would be indistinguishable, except for the fact that the Harry Potter series was much better written.

Magic babies and zombie gods belong along side claims of boys flying around on brooms.

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3178
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I will

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I will not continue to answer foolishness. 

i REALLY wish that was true.

seriously, john-john, why are you wasting your time here?  according to your own thinking, if we're damned, not a single thing you say will make a difference and if we're elect, not a single thing you say will make a difference.

at least admit that you're here purely out of personal pride.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
-1

you wrote:
1) Pain and Suffereing = My Dad or Mom abused me, or Dad died when I was 7.

2) Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll = I wanna tap that, oh, I feel so guilty, oh, there is no God, oh, I don't feel guilty.

There is generally a 3rd reason, but it is rare and surround money. So I will not discuss that.


I will overlook to the fact that these are prejudicies, but it's really useless to discuss if the arguments get ignored and we get casual answer in place of a coherent one.

Obviously the bane to all religions is eternal life. If you'd have that, you wouldn't care to die and so to create gods in your image. There is perhaps a little feeble condition that we can use to reason in that light, and it's that the evidence point to a true death, being that there are not a lot of resurrections going on, lately.

I would point also to ignorance, which cause the thought that 'spirits' animate things, or as an elaboration of that, 'bad things happen to good people'. But that would mean a failure of causality, never verified.

For me the biggest proof is logic, and if you could ask yourself 'is empiricism true?' then you've answered that question positively. The conseguence is that we could demonstrate what is true, and blablabla.

PS
Im not sure ive made every argument clear, but i dont expect a rebuttal, so i only waste a certain amount of time on this.

PPS
and expecially considering the bad functioning of the editor, rich text or not


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I guess it's not possible

I guess it's not possible that someone might have just thought about it "too much" and came to a conclusion.

There apparently has to be some deal breaking reason to leave the invisible man behind (or rather deny him in a christians mind) and this would make perfect sense to someone who really did believe in it.

In a christians mind there is no possibility that this god does not exist so Jean.. you are the one sided coin. You are another christian that could not even truly imagine there is no god because you are limited to the scope it allows. Then you come here and rant about people who can see past it as if they are simply denying the small area you think you can see.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I guess it's

robj101 wrote:

I guess it's not possible that someone might have just thought about it "too much" and came to a conclusion.

There apparently has to be some deal breaking reason to leave the invisible man behind (or rather deny him in a christians mind) and this would make perfect sense to someone who really did believe in it.

In a christians mind there is no possibility that this god does not exist so Jean.. you are the one sided coin. You are another christian that could not even truly imagine there is no god because you are limited to the scope it allows. Then you come here and rant about people who can see past it as if they are simply denying the small area you think you can see.

Given the raised stakes that are used to threaten and bully Christians into the religion Jean's view makes sense.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I guess it's

robj101 wrote:

I guess it's not possible that someone might have just thought about it "too much" and came to a conclusion.

There apparently has to be some deal breaking reason to leave the invisible man behind (or rather deny him in a christians mind) and this would make perfect sense to someone who really did believe in it.

In a christians mind there is no possibility that this god does not exist so Jean.. you are the one sided coin. You are another christian that could not even truly imagine there is no god because you are limited to the scope it allows. Then you come here and rant about people who can see past it as if they are simply denying the small area you think you can see.

All believers of all deities/god/s assume it first and then work backwards to justify it. That is apology, not good use of  logic. It can be very elaborate, but it is still bad logic.

It is protected by ego. The fear of being wrong can and does drive people to cling to an absurdity.

The theist formula works like this.

Naked Assertion<=untestable formula based on tradition and circular reasoning<=desired outcome

Good logic works like this.

Prior data=established universal testable formula=projected outcome, then handed to an outside party to be independently verified.

Theism is not a method or a model it is a social club. It is a tool like cotton candy is a tool. It looks pretty and tastes good, but you cant build a house with 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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Well, part of the reason

There is some pain and suffering in my story, but it was not the entire contributing fact to my Atheism.

There are alot of Atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins that are Atheist for purely intellectual reasons, never had any bad experiences, and never had any emotional attachment to religion.

My story is a lot different. I was raised in a very strict religious household, as I have shared on here before. I woke up in the morning and immediately prayed to god (deliberate lower case spelling). Bible readings were done in my household every night. I voluntarily worked in the church.

Experiencea that I am not going into detail with here, lead me to believe that nothing was hearing my prayers and nothing was guiding me.

At first, I became an Atheist out of pain and suffering. BUT, when I discovered science and knowledge, it made more sense to me than all of the superstitious fairy tales that had been handed to me my whole life.

Plus, empirical evidence and critical thinking (something that theism never taught me, but science did ) showed me the way, the truth and the life (sarcasm intended).

But of course, if you are a Calvinist, Jean, you will proably just say that I was hellbound before I was born and never really a true Christian.

However, I remember very strongly, what it was like to be a very devout believer. I remember what it was like to believe in all of the perverse teachings of the Bible.

I can't imagine ever returning to that. If the god of the bible ever proved himself to be real (which he can not, because he does not exist) I would reject him completely and gladly go to hell rather than accept such a tyrannical monster.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:There

harleysportster wrote:

There is some pain and suffering in my story, but it was not the entire contributing fact to my Atheism.

There are alot of Atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins that are Atheist for purely intellectual reasons, never had any bad experiences, and never had any emotional attachment to religion.

My story is a lot different. I was raised in a very strict religious household, as I have shared on here before. I woke up in the morning and immediately prayed to god (deliberate lower case spelling). Bible readings were done in my household every night. I voluntarily worked in the church.

Experiencea that I am not going into detail with here, lead me to believe that nothing was hearing my prayers and nothing was guiding me.

At first, I became an Atheist out of pain and suffering. BUT, when I discovered science and knowledge, it made more sense to me than all of the superstitious fairy tales that had been handed to me my whole life.

Plus, empirical evidence and critical thinking (something that theism never taught me, but science did ) showed me the way, the truth and the life (sarcasm intended).

But of course, if you are a Calvinist, Jean, you will proably just say that I was hellbound before I was born and never really a true Christian.

However, I remember very strongly, what it was like to be a very devout believer. I remember what it was like to believe in all of the perverse teachings of the Bible.

I can't imagine ever returning to that. If the god of the bible ever proved himself to be real (which he can not, because he does not exist) I would reject him completely and gladly go to hell rather than accept such a tyrannical monster.

It is true that you can reject a deity claim for emotional reasons, and laypersons can and do do that.

HOWEVER, that is not the only reason to reject a deity claim and certainly not the best reason.

I have met plenty of people saying that they don't believe in the monotheism popular today, but simply say "it doesn't make sense".

I agree it doesn't make sense, but leaving it at that leaves one open to slick salesmen.

The best and most important reason to reject any and all deity claims is simple, lack of evidence.

The good and evil issue is important too, only in the context of postulating an "all loving" deity which is contradicted by human suffering. This addresses the broken concept of theistic morality.

I had more emotional problems growing up as a believer than I do now as an atheist. But any problems I still have are not a result of Allah or Jesus or Thor. They are a result of existence, evolution and environment.

People like Jean have no choice but to pull childish crap and pathetically try to make atheism out to be a mental illness. But magic babies and zombie gods and magic floods, that's ok?

Once one grows up they leave their childhood friends behind. Deity belief is popular, sure. But it is merely a reflection of how childish our species still is collectively and how far we need to go to shed the credulous past.

Claiming that an invisible guy in the sky answers everything is as intellectually childish as insisting that the earth is flat. It was understandable when we as a species didn't know better. We do know and it is way past time we move out of the mythological past.

Volcanos were never gods, the sun was never a god, virgin births are as much a superstition as lucky horseshoes and we wont get 72 virgins when we die. These are merely childish stories adults cling to because of social norms, not because of any provable testable reality.

 

 

 

"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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Jean, aside from the fact

 Jean, aside from the fact that you set a false dichotomy with your atheism/Christianity BS, and you bring the BS about the emotional thing... not sure what that's about really.  Let's take my personal experience as an example, since it is the only thing I have as one that consistently relies on empiricism Smiling.  I was born in a mostly atheistic society, so growing up, religion was on par with belief in Santa.  As I started reading and questioning, I fell into some sort of deism philosophy with no clear defined goal.  Most of my deistic concepts were formulated to answer my ignorance regarding the cosmological argument, and more importantly, my emotional arguments.  Stuff like, why do we have to die when we're all so special?  And, how can I just not continue on forever, since I'm me, and I'm so special.  Why would my dog have to die and not continue on?  Just the usual childish crap.

Eventually I began to read more and was able to find more satisfactory answers for those questions, answers like... we're not fucking special.  

So you see, for me it was exactly the opposite, emotion and irrationality drove me into theism, and rationality showed me the true way Smiling repent and join the church of atheism.  I will show you the empirical way if you send me your money order or cash.  

Anyways, aside from me not being emotionally influenced, I also lead a life cleaner of drugs and rock'n'roll than all of my theist friends.  All matters sexual are taken up with my wife only.  While this doesn't prove that I'm a better person then theists, it does prove that your assumptions are just naked assertions like the rest of your rambling.

I'm not a greedy person either, I make enough money to live comfortably, but I am very far from rich.  Everything I have and my financial future is completely dependent on mine and my wife's ability to provide. 

Anyways, that's why I'm an atheist, and in my case, as in most I suspect, you are wrong.

PS.  I have created a thread for us a few days ago at 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29494

join me in a discussion there Smiling

Edit mistype.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Jean, aside

Ktulu wrote:

 Jean, aside from the fact that you set a false dichotomy with your atheism/Christianity BS, and you bring the BS about the emotional thing... not sure what that's about really.  Let's take my personal experience as an example, since it is the only thing I have as one that consistently relies on empiricism Smiling.  I was born in a mostly atheistic society, so growing up, religion was on par with belief in Santa.  As I started reading and questioning, I fell into some sort of deism philosophy with no clear defined goal.  Most of my deistic concepts were formulated to answer my ignorance regarding the cosmological argument, and more importantly, my emotional arguments.  Stuff like, why do we have to die when we're all so special?  And, how can I just not continue on forever, since I'm me, and I'm so special.  Why would my dog have to die and not continue on?  Just the usual childish crap.

Eventually I began to read more and was able to find more satisfactory answers for those questions, answers like... we're not fucking special.  

So you see, for me it was exactly the opposite, emotion and irrationality drove me into theism, and rationality showed me the true way Smiling repent and join the church of atheism.  I will show you the empirical way if you send me your money order or cash.  

Anyways, aside from me not being emotionally influenced, I also lead a life cleaner of drugs and rock'n'roll than all of my theist friends.  All matters sexual are taken up with my wife only.  While this doesn't prove that I'm a better person then theists, it does prove that your assumptions are just naked assertions like the rest of your rambling.

I'm not a greedy person either, I make enough money to live comfortably, but I am very far from rich.  Everything I have and my financial future is completely dependent on mine and my wife's ability to provide. 

Anyways, that's why I'm an atheist, and in my case, as in most I suspect, you are wrong.

PS.  I have created a thread for us a few days ago at 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29494

join me in a discussion there Smiling

Edit mistype.

It scares the shit out of the believer that they are not special in the grand scope. Instead of accepting the fact that scientifically we are a temporary blip in all this, they cling to myth and project a fictional utopia on reality bastardizing any real meaning we can give ourselves now, during our finite existence.

It is a side affect of evolution. We were not born at the beginning of our history as a species with the increasing answers we have now. So the memes that got sold in our early history were gaps passed down through generations creating newer myths. Our current knowledge is relatively a second in our history.

Myth is a natural side affect of our REAL evolution of seeking patterns. Our problem in evolution is that our emotions often override our pragmatic testing side which allows a placebo to become a survival mechanism creating a real social structure. It isn't that the god is real, it is that the collective belief creates a "safety in numbers" which does allow for more chances at reproduction.

Evolution isn't about perfection or utopias and even in evolution a placebo can work.

The false belief the ancient Egyptians had in believing that the sun was a thinking being created a real environment that allowed the Egyptians to thrive for 3,000 years. Modern monotheism, and all deity belief for that matter falsely thinks it is not making the same mistake the Egyptians did.

What works isn't the fictional deity itself, what works is the collective effort people make because of the false belief.

 

 

"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


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

I did not start this thread because of you, What?

also, I never said God did the evil in Japan.

 

 

In which case, what is the deal with the thread that you started titled:

Japanese Earthquake created by God Almighty

 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29114

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I guess it's not possible that someone might have just thought about it "too much" and came to a conclusion.

There apparently has to be some deal breaking reason to leave the invisible man behind (or rather deny him in a christians mind) and this would make perfect sense to someone who really did believe in it.

In a christians mind there is no possibility that this god does not exist so Jean.. you are the one sided coin. You are another christian that could not even truly imagine there is no god because you are limited to the scope it allows. Then you come here and rant about people who can see past it as if they are simply denying the small area you think you can see.

All believers of all deities/god/s assume it first and then work backwards to justify it. That is apology, not good use of  logic. It can be very elaborate, but it is still bad logic.

It is protected by ego. The fear of being wrong can and does drive people to cling to an absurdity.

The theist formula works like this.

Naked Assertion<=untestable formula based on tradition and circular reasoning<=desired outcome

Good logic works like this.

Prior data=established universal testable formula=projected outcome, then handed to an outside party to be independently verified.

Theism is not a method or a model it is a social club. It is a tool like cotton candy is a tool. It looks pretty and tastes good, but you cant build a house with it.

 

 

Probably a fine assesment in your own terms but I don't depend on scientific principles or standardized logic, they just tend to back up regular ole' critical thought.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:robj101

jcgadfly wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I guess it's not possible that someone might have just thought about it "too much" and came to a conclusion.

There apparently has to be some deal breaking reason to leave the invisible man behind (or rather deny him in a christians mind) and this would make perfect sense to someone who really did believe in it.

In a christians mind there is no possibility that this god does not exist so Jean.. you are the one sided coin. You are another christian that could not even truly imagine there is no god because you are limited to the scope it allows. Then you come here and rant about people who can see past it as if they are simply denying the small area you think you can see.

Given the raised stakes that are used to threaten and bully Christians into the religion Jean's view makes sense.

At the same time if those "stakes" are clearly bullshit it makes his entire view null and void, which is why it is self sustaining, it can't "possibly" be bullshit or the whole house of cards falls down.

He, like most christians, thinks we rely on evolution. It is our "card" and if it falls so too does our "atheism". But not really we would just need to keep looking but evolution is obviously a reality we can see unlike his "card" which was written by men 2000 years ago who really understoood little about the world around them.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I guess it's not possible that someone might have just thought about it "too much" and came to a conclusion.

There apparently has to be some deal breaking reason to leave the invisible man behind (or rather deny him in a christians mind) and this would make perfect sense to someone who really did believe in it.

In a christians mind there is no possibility that this god does not exist so Jean.. you are the one sided coin. You are another christian that could not even truly imagine there is no god because you are limited to the scope it allows. Then you come here and rant about people who can see past it as if they are simply denying the small area you think you can see.

All believers of all deities/god/s assume it first and then work backwards to justify it. That is apology, not good use of  logic. It can be very elaborate, but it is still bad logic.

It is protected by ego. The fear of being wrong can and does drive people to cling to an absurdity.

The theist formula works like this.

Naked Assertion<=untestable formula based on tradition and circular reasoning<=desired outcome

Good logic works like this.

Prior data=established universal testable formula=projected outcome, then handed to an outside party to be independently verified.

Theism is not a method or a model it is a social club. It is a tool like cotton candy is a tool. It looks pretty and tastes good, but you cant build a house with it.

 

 

Probably a fine assesment in your own terms but I don't depend on scientific principles or standardized logic, they just tend to back up regular ole' critical thought.

Not sure what you mean here.

Ultimately when humans have competing claims there is only one universal way to settle it. In a lab with plenty of oversight and quality control and repetition and independent verification.

Don't get me wrong. I don't look under the hood of my van every day to make sure the engine is still there. It would be impractical to go through life doing that all the time in every single aspect of my life. What I don't do, which theism does, is assume that engine is run on pixy dust merely because I cant build an engine myself.

When I leave my house, my cat and dog remain there. While there are no absolutes, the consistent current conditions of my house and the neighborhood and the health of the pets, would make it a safe bet that when I come home, they are still going to be there.

What I would not do, if I came home, and they were not there, is say, "The devil did it". I would think, maybe I left the door open. Or someone broke in and left the door open. Something realistic and simplistic as a possible answer to the change.

Occham's razor.

 


 

"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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Occham's

Brian37 wrote:

 

Occham's razor.

 


 

 

Is not definitive nor absolute and can be abused easily.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Occham's razor.

 


 

 

Is not definitive nor absolute and can be abused easily.

Huh?

ANYTHING can be abused, but I don't see what you are getting at since I admitted that there are no absolutes.

I am addressing what theists ignore. Like the fact that we can and do know what DNA is and DNA has no need for Allah or Thor to explain why it exists.

No one, not even me can be 100% rational every second of our lives. Otherwise we wouldn't walk around with our house keys in our hands wondering where our house keys were. I've done that.

Still not understanding.

 

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

I did not start this thread because of you, What?

also, I never said God did the evil in Japan.

 

 

In which case, what is the deal with the thread that you started titled:

Japanese Earthquake created by God Almighty

 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29114

According to Jean, God didn't do evil - just angry. It just shows his God to be a capricious being who likes to kill whenever he gets a wild hair up his backside.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:WHY AM I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

WHY AM I AN ATHEIST???

I was asking a person on here to show me the path of their apostasy. After refuting the first objection, it appears he did not want to continue down the path of his objections.

99% of all atheists are atheists for 2 reasons. And 100% of atheists are atheists due to emotional reactions. The two reasons to be an atheist is:

1) Pain and Suffereing = My Dad or Mom abused me, or Dad died when I was 7. 

2) Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll = I wanna tap that, oh, I feel so guilty, oh, there is no God, oh, I don't feel guilty.

There is generally a 3rd reason, but it is rare and surround money. So I will not discuss that. 

 

 

Sorry to interrupt your parade, but I have never been a theist and thus I do not fit in any of your idiotic models. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
You also forget, Jean, that

You also forget, Jean, that there is a "Sex Drugs & Rock 'n' Roll" excuse for Christianity as well.

"I wanna tap that, oh, I feel so guilty, oh, Jesus please forgive my sins, oh, I don't feel guilty because I know Jesus forgave me".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You also

jcgadfly wrote:

You also forget, Jean, that there is a "Sex Drugs & Rock 'n' Roll" excuse for Christianity as well.

"I wanna tap that, oh, I feel so guilty, oh, Jesus please forgive my sins, oh, I don't feel guilty because I know Jesus forgave me".

LOL. Christians and all other religions are so obsessed with the notions and natural urges of sex.

Odd, when I rejected the perpetual state of Christian guilt that was so indoctrinated into me, I NEVER felt guilty for "tapping" as Jean put it, anyone.

Strange that he should refer to a consensual act between two people as "tapping". Could that be a bit of a Freudian slip there ? Could it be that Christians are just jealous of the fact that I can "tap" without the fear of hell ? Is that really why they hate sex so much ? Cause they want to do it and feel that they can not ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Occham's razor.

 


 

 

Is not definitive nor absolute and can be abused easily.

Huh?

ANYTHING can be abused, but I don't see what you are getting at since I admitted that there are no absolutes.

I am addressing what theists ignore. Like the fact that we can and do know what DNA is and DNA has no need for Allah or Thor to explain why it exists.

No one, not even me can be 100% rational every second of our lives. Otherwise we wouldn't walk around with our house keys in our hands wondering where our house keys were. I've done that.

Still not understanding.

 

But god made dna, if you want to play with occams razor god is the easiest answer for everything the only question which remains is what made "god" and again it's simple, it's just something beyond our understanding. If this "god" decided to build a bible and religion based on what men want and prefer then he has done well in convincing me that he is a man or "men" therefore he intended for a thinking human to believe such. Good job there "god"...mission accomplished.

I didn't say anything about not being rational I'm just saying science is not necessary. Science just happens to back up what typical rational thought should put forth in the first place. I don't think it's particularly scientific to be able to imagine how people would have thought 2000 years ago with the amount of knowledge they had coupled with bad manners and primitive desire. Science is just "handy" and more realistic than it's religious counterpart "faith in the bible" which is generally instilled by the one's who have already fallen for it.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:But god made

robj101 wrote:

But god made dna, if you want to play with occams razor god is the easiest answer for everything the only question which remains is what made "god" and again it's simple, it's just something beyond our understanding. If this "god" decided to build a bible and religion based on what men want and prefer then he has done well in convincing me that he is a man or "men" therefore he intended for a thinking human to believe such. Good job there "god"...mission accomplished.

I didn't say anything about not being rational I'm just saying science is not necessary. Science just happens to back up what typical rational thought should put forth in the first place. I don't think it's particularly scientific to be able to imagine how people would have thought 2000 years ago with the amount of knowledge they had coupled with bad manners and primitive desire. Science is just "handy" and more realistic than it's religious counterpart "faith in the bible" which is generally instilled by the one's who have already fallen for it.

 

Occam's razor is about choosing the hypothesis, all things being EQUAL, that makes the least naked assertions.  It's a tool to economize energy in dealing with multiple hypotheses, and it is not about the simplest answer.  Actually saying god did it, makes not just god as a naked assertion, but adds incoherency to any rational solution segue via your hypothesis.  

Science is just a rational description of empirically observed phenomena, if you want to simplify it.  It doesn't just back up rational thought, it is rational thought.  And religion is not science's counterpart, it's just ritualized superstition.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Just to wrest this topic away

 

from our darling companion Jeano, I want to question Occam's Razor - that being whether or not the answer making the least fresh assumptions should generally be considered the better.

What about new hypotheses in areas for which we have little or no understanding? Perhaps when it gets to the outskirts of understanding, knowledge, comprehension, it may be that a slew of new assumptions on top of new assumptions - a total sidestep - might be needed to break through the scientific dogmas that encapsulate current human incomprehension? Surely the theory of evolution represented such a proposal at a distant point in the explicable past?

Does our elevation of Occam's Razor represent a limitation? I tend to think that if flights of fancy are recognised for what they truly are, complete departure from norms may be a very worthy tool when ultimately bound for veracity to testable explanations.

Phew. Now where's the rest of that Rioja? 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Indeed

Ktulu wrote:

And religion is not science's counterpart, it's just ritualized superstition.

 

Absolutely right. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:from

Atheistextremist wrote:

from our darling companion Jeano, I want to question Occam's Razor - that being whether or not the answer making the least fresh assumptions should generally be considered the better.

What about new hypotheses in areas for which we have little or no understanding? Perhaps when it gets to the outskirts of understanding, knowledge, comprehension, it may be that a slew of new assumptions on top of new assumptions - a total sidestep - might be needed to break through the scientific dogmas that encapsulate current human incomprehension? Surely the theory of evolution represented such a proposal at a distant point in the explicable past?

Does our elevation of Occam's Razor represent a limitation? I tend to think that if flights of fancy are recognised for what they truly are, complete departure from norms may be a very worthy tool when ultimately bound for veracity to testable explanations.

Phew. Now where's the rest of that Rioja? 

 

Occam's razor is an economic tool, not an algorithm.  You may arrive at extraordinary results by adding assumptions on top of assumptions, think Einstein, but it's not a very economical way to approach a problem.  The thing is, in order to generate completely new ideas, you MUST be irrational.  Or in other words ignore Occam's razor.

My brother and I were having a discussion on this a short while back.  He equates intelligence with rationality, I prefer a much broader definition that incorporates genius as part of intelligence.  True genius thrives on irrationality, but Occam's razor is still a valid tool.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I don't know, Jean, why are

I don't know, Jean, why are you an atheist?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I don't know, Jean,

cj wrote:

I don't know, Jean, why are you an atheist?

LOL. Probably because he is a Rational Christian of Rare intelligence with some sort of valid epistemology. If that is not enough to make one an Atheist, I do not know what will.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I don't know, Jean,

cj wrote:

I don't know, Jean, why are you an atheist?

When I read it, I also thought that he was "coming out".  Dropping the poe Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:robj101

Ktulu wrote:

robj101 wrote:

But god made dna, if you want to play with occams razor god is the easiest answer for everything the only question which remains is what made "god" and again it's simple, it's just something beyond our understanding. If this "god" decided to build a bible and religion based on what men want and prefer then he has done well in convincing me that he is a man or "men" therefore he intended for a thinking human to believe such. Good job there "god"...mission accomplished.

I didn't say anything about not being rational I'm just saying science is not necessary. Science just happens to back up what typical rational thought should put forth in the first place. I don't think it's particularly scientific to be able to imagine how people would have thought 2000 years ago with the amount of knowledge they had coupled with bad manners and primitive desire. Science is just "handy" and more realistic than it's religious counterpart "faith in the bible" which is generally instilled by the one's who have already fallen for it.

 

Occam's razor is about choosing the hypothesis, all things being EQUAL, that makes the least naked assertions.  It's a tool to economize energy in dealing with multiple hypotheses, and it is not about the simplest answer.  Actually saying god did it, makes not just god as a naked assertion, but adds incoherency to any rational solution segue via your hypothesis.  

Science is just a rational description of empirically observed phenomena, if you want to simplify it.  It doesn't just back up rational thought, it is rational thought.  And religion is not science's counterpart, it's just ritualized superstition.

I was talking as a theist in the first part of my statement. I'm fully aware of the reality but things today pit science vs religion and that too is a reality.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello,I will attempt to

Hello,

I will attempt to answer and respond to the comments. This is an interesting thread.

_________

JCG via Post # 13, my response is that this is false. Spell Casting is done via volition of visualization. Thus you control the outcome via the ability to meditate enough to control the energy OF your volition. Thus prayer is outside and external while spell casting starts and ends internally. 

I’m not sure what you mean by anointing. If you mean the Pentecostal means, I don’t do that. However, historically it was a symbolic recognition of nobility or of importance. It was not a means to cast things into bodies or invoke dead spirits. The Baptism is merely a representation or a symbol as shown in I Peter 15-21. Peter says it is not the washing of the dirt that saves us, but the power of the Spirit. But historically via the Pharisees, it was indeed a purification ritual. They were wrong. There would be a set of stairs going down in a hole, then walking level, and going up again. In the hole between the stairs would be a ravine of water. The Pharisee would walk down the steps under the water, and walk level underneath while walking back up the stairs. That was very legalistic and a rite of purification via the Talmud. But that was not the original intent and is absolutely not Christian. Logically speaking, only Jesus Christ and Christ alone via His atonement made us pure positionally, but not conditionally.

___________ 

IW via Post # 16, my response is that Christianity is not just about conversion, but also about conviction.___________ Luca via Post # 17 my response is that you probably mean that I am stereo-typing. Prejudice is usually used in personal racial relations. And all atheists must all be prejudice consistently speaking since Darwinian Evolution says boldly that Blacks are inferior via intelligence and Progressive Change since they are not as devolved as White European men. Since you will deny this, you pick and choose what you want via the ethics of Christianity that you steal.  Not sure what you mean by religion. But what I think you mean, not all "religions" are about eternal life. Aquino and LaVey is not. Along with the Humanists who declare themsevles as a religions in both manifesto I and II. Also Buddhists (northern buddhists) do not. So this is a false statement but since religions is no longer a term, you are speaking gobblygoock. You cannot use logic and empiricism at the same time. I had a huge discussion with Bob Spencer1 about this somewhere. He is still confused over it though he won't admit it. The 3 (and there is ONLY 3) categories of Knowing for atheists to choose from are: Rationalism (Capital R) that Reason is a god and logic is how we know  Empiricism that we know via experience with the means of our senses.
 Intuition we know because we feel that we know.
 If you combine two categories together, since they are contradictive in way, manner and relationship, you are making a very sloppy case for really nothing. Empiricism starts with apostori NOTHING and works up. Rationalism starts with logic and works down. You cannot combine them logically. So you're statement was absurd and "made no sense." Your argument has not been made. You simply shared with me of the style of your argument which I've shown to be completely absurd and contradicitve. I have yet to see an argument.________________
 Rob via Post # 18 my response is that I don't really know what you are saying. So you mean that you do not have to have a logical reason to deny God's Being. You just believe it like you believe not to believe? Weak Christians do the same thing. They do not have to have a reason for their faith, they just believe what they believe. This is known as irrationality or absurdity. And I can recommend some Witchcraft sites to suit you better. In Sapients mind, there is a MAYBE that some god exists, just not the abrahamic God. He said that somewhere on this website. I think via his activism or something. Another example of emotional reactions. But, I know what I believe and I believe what I know. While I have logical reason and confidence, you have doubt and confusion. _______________Brian via Post # 20 my response is that the atheists work backwards, not the Christian. They must empirical start with NOTHING, and get to SOMETHING, while the Christian always argues via something, to understand something. Your method cannot work. Regarding the data, since the relationship required among the data is 100% non-empirical, then empiricism dies right there. They have fallen and can't get up. You cannot eat relationship of data with your french fries. Thus, since the inference of perspective via the data of relationship is outside the category and scope that is the means to attempt at the know, empiricism is a duck without the web feet, and thus out of the water. You are incorrect about method. Since methodology of anything is the philosophy of that something, and since there is indeed a Christian philosophy that I hold to among other Chrisitans, it is indeed a method of thought. Regarding a model like empirical models of sense data, no.
 ______________ HarleySportster via Post # 21 my response is that this is very interesting. So originally you responded emotionally? I don't really blame you. It sounds like they were extremely legalistic, and thus confused you via the differences between Grace and the Law.

 

So your conception of God was very hardnosed, rigid, non-loving, all wrathful if you don't do what you'll told kind of thing. You need to know that what was presented to you as a kid was NOT Chrisitanity, but a form of legalistic hogwash. However, there is something you ought to know about prayer, sometimes God says YES, NO, and sometimes WAIT. But since John tells me you were never a Christian (maybe even your parents) according to II JOHN 2:19, and since God does not listen or answer the prayers of the wicked, perhaps that was the answer as to why He never answered your prayers.

 

It is not my Calvinism that is saying you were never a Chrisitan. It's the Bible via I John 2:19 says that you were never a Christian. Read it.
 Your comment that you first becamse an atheist due to pain and suffering, but science helped you feel better intellectually is really crazy and very strange to hear. Christianity is credited as the birth of science by non-Christians in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 Volumes.

 

Secular pagans and herestics, who hate Christians, attempted to know outside of Christianity and all failed. They have since in the last century redefined terms to deceive and confuse the generations that followed. So your notion or underlining tone that Christianity is antithetical to science is absurd (I should say Biblical Christianity).

 

Critical Thinking that atheists teach were copied by the Christians. Sure they used some Greek Philosopher, but let's be honest, the underlining stucture is Christian.

 

I do agree that you believed in some perverse things that were UnBiblical. You were not taught Christianity, you were taught Judaism. ______________

 

Brian via post 22 my response is that I understand that you believe that it is possible to reject Christianity out of rational reasons. I know you believe that. But I'm trying to help you in telling you that you're wrong.

 

Since the 3 forms of secular atheistic means of knowing have all been utterly refuted, atheism cannot know. Yet you plug your ears, cover your eyes, and say la la la la la la la la la la, and then repeat the crapola that was just refuted.

 

So, via this means, All atheists reject Christianity and accept an alternative (atheism) out of emotional reasons since Christians means of knwoing is the only MODEL that works.

 

"It doesn't make sense" comment is utterly sloppy. Since sense is undefined, and because the method of analysis is very premature. However, the Bible purposely allows people to be deceived I Thess 2:11 and says the pagan heretical hypocrite cannot understand.

 

But the correct analysis must be to evaulate the validity of Christianity, and then the soundness afterwards. There are plenty of Christians who use the secular atheistic empirical model that would suit your secular taste just for a heads up.
 The good and evil thing is not a problem. God creates evil, but is not the agent of evil. Thus He remains good. He is not responsible for the creation of that evil since there is nobody higher then Him to respond to. Since He is not the agent of the evil, then His character remains forever good. Period. This is obviously simplified, but nevertheless, true.

 

Liberalism is a mental illness. And since it is 100% impossible for a Christiian to be a liberal, only atheists and other degenerates, then of course atheism is among the categories of secular absurdity that have somewhat of a mental illness. IW said he wants to put a bullet in my brain. He is more consistent then most on here. But if you were all consistent, you would be scheming up ways to achieve this. _______________

 

KTULA via post # 23 my response is that while there are false dichotomies, there are also true dichotomies. But I don't believe I set up a dichotomy since I offered a 3rd possible option.

 

Since you were raised in a communistic atheistic society, this caused you to form presuppositions that you implemented in your adulthood to solidify atheism in your mind. I am actually surprised you are so nice considering. You ought to be a murderer or have a poster of Mao on your wall in hope to murder more then Mao did. But I'm sure you have Cha. (lol).

 

I know you'll going to think I'm giving you bullshit, but I am truly saddened hearing about what you grew up in. Wow, what a childhood. Your satisfactory answers you received were just smokescreens to satisfy your presuppositions that were taunting you and haunting your conscience.

 

Well wait a minute, so you claim to be a Christian as a child, and then an atheist despite your society? Well no wonder your confliction. Would you shoot me in the head if you were a communist leader and I was in your country. Just how severe are your ideas?

 

But you admitted, they were merely satisfactory answers. I'm afraid ALL reasons to deny Christianity are emotional reactions since they are all refuted as false. Thus you cling to what is false since you emoitionally hate what is and go so far as to deny the very hate you have. _____________
 Brian via post #24 my response is that for you to assertain what scares Christians, you must interview all of them. So you are interjecting yoru own feelings as a universal. This would make you an intuitive atheist and not an empiricist, So we see that you have mashed all three secular epistemological theories in some way, making your claim that much more absurd.

 

As an evolution, could you admit to be Brian that Blacks are not as evolved as White European men and that they are inferior to Whites in both evolutionary progress of being and intelligence. If you cannot do this, you are an evolutionary hypocrite, and deny classical evolution. 
 Actually, evolution IS intended for utopia via the philosophy of evolution. Read the Brave New World. 

 

Egyptians were NOT monotheists but polytheists. The sun RA was one among many gods. Zeitgurst was wrong. They also have sex with animals such as cows.
 Your last statement is very very commuinistic. That's my point. All communists by definition are atheist. (consistent ones) on the surface, and very very very pagan underneath.___________________

 

AiG via post # 25 my response is simple, and I've explained this a number of times. God did not do the earthquake, but merely created the evil in order for the earthquake to be carried out. This was either via Satan, the natural means of the world He created via entropy. So, God didn't do it.___________________

 

Rob via post # 26 and #27 my response is that secular attempts at science cannot back up that which is clearly not defined via the known. Since ratio of error of all forms of data via it's probability are NEVER NEVER EVER determined, then a piece of data via a ratio of 99% chance of error will not be determined, and accepted as truth. Thus you are always pissing in the wind. It only relaxes your conscience via the sin in your life.
 Of course you rely on evolution and thus are a racists. Thus MLK Jr, which is very very bazare that most blacks in America are liberal socialist. It boggles the mind.  

 

Brian via post # 28 my response is that there are no universals in empiricism since the relation of data is non-empirical along with time and space and the distace of which a proper perspective of inference upon the object in question to assertain the correct means of the known. 

 

When you say theists you lump them as one which is a huge fallacy. Christians however do not say pixy dusts drives out cars sincw we recognize sin, death, and decay. 

 

Also, since you don't check the car all the time, you do not know if there is a leak of oil and your engine will explode. You are going off of probability  or more of a guess or hunch. Somtimes you take chances. In what you call science this is knowledge to you. This is an example of the utter idiocracy of atheism. It's very close to mental retardation.
 If there are no absolutes, then you cannot say there are no absolutes since that is an absolute. Again, this is why Skeptics are more consistent as atheists. You must live according to Heraclitus, you cannot know.
 YOU CAN EVER STEP INTO THE SAME RIVER TWICE.
 Occam's Razor is simply the notion that if you have 2 solutions to a given problem, the simpler one is usually the one that is right. But Occam was a scholastic philosopher. He did not believe in probable empiricism or Rationalsi Capital R. He was coming from the Christian perspective of absolutes. Remember, Occam was a CHRISTIAN Theologian, so you are using the advice from a Christian. Odd. Why not use my advice.
 _______________
 JCG Post via # 33 my response is that YES, there is sex drugs and rock n roll in Christianity. However, the difference is that is inconsistent to Christianity while it is consistent to atheism._______________HarleySporter via # 34 my response is that those are immature inconsistent Chrisitians. God created the means of sex in the proper roles. Sex is pretty sexual via marriage and is a good thing. Sleeping around isn't, which is why God gives perverts herpes.

 

My wording of tapping is just the means to speak atheism. There's Chinese, English, Latin, Mormonism, Satanism and Atheism. They all have their own language. Tapping is unique to atheistic liberalism that has crept into our socilaistic schools.  Consistent Christians do not hate sex, they love it. You are thinking of Roman Catholicism.______________ Robs via post # 35 my answer is once again, that Occam was a Christian. So he applied this within that reference. He did not know of logical positism, or Existialism. He was speaking from a Christian framework.     
 It is very odd that you use a Christian’s work all the time. Again, use my work to help you become a better atheist. I’m serious. Yes God created DNA. And it is logical to say that it is beyond are exhaustive understanding since we are particular finite beings while God is an Infinite Being. Thus we will NEVER know as much as God____________Well I thought the responses would be more thought provoking. Most tried to explain things away via their experience of examples. But in logic, examples NEVER prove anything, they are only meant to clarify the proposition.
 Again, since all atheistic means of epistemology have been refuted, and since as an effect of the refutation atheism has redefined their terms to suit their emptiness, via objectivity, atheism remains an emotional reaction. A grasp at straws we could say.
 The Christian model is the only one that is true, and thus works. The other ones fail via probability among other things. Since the hate is so deep and real, the fool will cling to anything that is foolish, lest wisdom bite him in the ass which faces him.  Respectfully, Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi CJ

Hi CJ,

I am a-theist because it is true.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: I am

Jean bin Laden wrote:

 

I am a-theist because it is true.

        ...so say the Muslims, the religious Jews, the Catholics, the Hindus, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Branch Davidians, the "Moonies", the Christian Identity movement, the Wiccans, The Heaven's Gate Cult, etc.

   To the religious minded person truth is what ever you want it to be.  You are no exception.   Your so called "truth", like every other religious claim, is paradoxically a lie.    Now that's irony in the most extreme sense.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Don't Want To be Alone in a Dark Alley With

Hi Don't want to be alone in a dark alley with.

Well logically speaking, those systems would be false.

Everybody believes what they adhere to is true. However, via logic and reason, they break down logically while Christianity sustains.

Thus Christians stands is the only truth that is known.

Truth is a variable with absolute zero error.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean, I'm genuinely curious

Jean, I'm genuinely curious if you come here as a troll or if you're an ironic atheist trying to show how foolish Christianity is.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:1) Pain

Jean Chauvin wrote:
1) Pain and Suffereing = My Dad or Mom abused me, or Dad died when I was 7. 

2) Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll = I wanna tap that, oh, I feel so guilty, oh, there is no God, oh, I don't feel guilty.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

That's my two cents.

 

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

Everybody believes what they adhere to is true. However, via logic and reason, they break down logically while Christianity sustains.

Thus Christians stands is the only truth that is known.

Truth is a variable with absolute zero error.

 

So why would people leave the truth or have their own truths in the first place if christianity is "an absolute". error 0011010 error

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin