The statement "God has all the answers to your questions," obviously is conditional on whether you have faith in God, and faith that the Bible is from God, of God.  That would be my point on why a theists ability to fulfill your desire for answers will always be inadequate on any question.  You do not have the faith in the Bible in the first place. 

I'm just really hesitant, with good reason, to use a book you believe is crap, to defend or answer any questions.  See the delimma?  

Were you ever really a christian, or did you jump on the band wagon?  Were you merely a christian on the surface or was this something you truly believe you owned and then disowned?  

I am not running, not yet anyways.  I spent my first couple posts, and part of this one to develop my position on the answering of all 50+ questions posed on this thread.  Now that I have done so, sure i'll discuss questions with you.  Let's take one question at a time, or no more than three at a time, just to keep this organized and to keep the size of post under 500 words or so.  What will be the first one(s), what are you hung up on the most?   

To comprehend that is possible to truly be a christian and to truly lose your faith. It's a real event, Upside, make no mistake about it. I became a christian at about 6 or 7 probably earlier. And I loved god as much as it's possible for a kid to love. I lost my faith as I gained my empathy. The more I grew into myself, the more I found the bible god was a man-made bully and the violence and hate I daily read were a reflection of the worst and the most cowardly parts of mankind. Later than I should have, I finally realised my long-ago child had been deceived.

It took until I was in my late 30s even into my 40s to begin to truly escape the threats and make a judgment based on personal integrity and rational consideration. The intervening years were a torment of doubt and fear. I may have lost my faith but I've never lost my anger.

Second time I have heard God called evil or bully type remarks.  I'm sorry that's how you see God.  I do see a God that punishes if that is what you are talking about.  I'd be interested into more detail about the bullying, where God was a bully.  There are times in the OT where it gets pretty harsh.  

When it comes to empathy, it is hard hearing a story or beliefs that do not coincide with yours.  I think you've had a long battle through it all and as you said made a judgment on personal integrity and rational consideration over 30 years or so.  You've probably heard all the arguments and sentiments regarding why God is better than atheism.  I think the ski mask think was pretty raw, though I would not say inviting. 

Anyways, i'd like to hear more about the early decision at 6/7, what were the turning points that shot you towards atheism?  What do you hate about theists and what do you like about atheists?  What do you like about theists, surely there is something since atheists believe in doing good to all right? Answer if you wish, take care and later on ski mask man. 

broadly accepting the best model of what can be known based on the available proof while remaining ready to change your mind at a moment's notice.

Islam (and christianity) involve believing what you are told on pain of death/torment.

No one here would not change their scientific position based on powerful new scientific evidence.

But will they change their minds on the basis of no evidence backed up with the threat of torture? I think not. If you fail to see this distinction you are being obtuse.

Science in and of itself is the examination of what can be known on the basis of repeated experiment. When science cannot provide the answers the correct position is to say you do not know - not to start insisting on an argument from complexity as you are.

Comparatively, religion is dogma based on assumptions of a supernatural 'reality' for which there is no proof at all.

I read your views on the near solar system on your thread with Butter. I recommend your read some Kepler. You might find his work instructive.

Can you cite your references?  With those descriptions it is hard to zero in on what moment or event you are talking about.  The way you write that up, it sounds simple indeed. 

Welcome to the forum, luca.

1)      He very well may not have. Much like the precise numeric lick-requirement necessary to obtain tootsie-pop related chocolaty goodness, the world may never know. And even if he did, people aren’t perfect.

2)      ‘Cause it probably isn’t true. It’s probably allegory.

3)      Well, most modern humans originated in Asia, actually. (Since about half of the worlds population was born there, so each of those individuals “originated” there). But seriously, yes, you are correct. The oldest ancestor that has in common with us certain crucial features came lived in Africa.

4)      Heaven is the state of being good. Like all truly worthy goals, it cannot be attained, only sought, and only while we are here. All symbolism and metaphor for concepts most atheists agree with fundamentally. Like “doing genuinely good acts brings the purest kind of satisfaction,” and “doing something truly abhorrent brings the coldest kind of apathy.” Think about it as hot and cold. Cold is just the absence of heat. Hell is the absence of good. It is not a real place.

5)      God is a concept, an idea that represents the inexplicable, as well as all things good. In my world-view, the mysterious is a part of the good, and God is the concept that encompasses both. He is not an alternative explanation; he is a lack of explanation. “He” has no emotions.

6)      Sin must enter the world. Without the cold, heat is meaningless. One cannot feel good if one cannot do evil.

7)      Hell is not synonymous with eternal torture; rather, the pure absence of any compassion, love, or kindness (all good traits) in ones heart is the worst feeling possible (the inability to feel is worse than bad feelings).

      I am confused. Where is the question? I suppose I shall respond to the only question I see. Yes, I do see what you are saying.

9)      Because metaphorical concepts are inanimate, and thus incapable of aforementioned head-reattachments. Also, this is invalid because those who would have you believe in a “Sky daddy” god would say that he wants you to believe in him through faith alone-thus, to prove himself would defeat the purpose. Likewise, I want my significant other to trust me. To have to prove to her that I really didn’t sleep with her friend kind of defeats the purpose.

10)   See above. And also, he does do it himself. It is the good inside of us that prompts us to spread Good to others. Of course, here I intend “the word of god” to mean “good words” or, more appropriately, “good meaning,” thus “education.”

11)    Had this actually been done, then no, it would not have been a good thing to do. It wasn’t, though.

12)   They don’t. He does. And yea, I know right?

13)   I really don’t think god advocated that particular activity.

14)   Fossils show carnivorous animals before man because there were carnivorous animals before man.

15)   God “thinks” the same way god “helps.” God is not so concrete an individual as many would have him. God thinks about my problems and helps me find solutions in the same way that stars “tell” me which way is north, or color “tells” me if a berry is edible. In fact, in this way, god tells me which way is north and which berry is edible, because by definition god is all that is good, and since this knowledge is good, this knowledge is god.

16)   This is absolutely true. But one must always choose what to believe, even if one pretends he/she doesn’t believe. Are the rules of logic infallible? How do you know? Because logically, they must be? That, my friend, is a logical fallacy. I choose to assume that logic is infallible, and also that god exists.

17)   Because killing them just for eating some tasty fruit would be evil. And yeah, that does seem like kind of a dick move. Sure glad it didn’t actually happen, and those stories are really just more allegory.

18)   Probably some form of antigravity. But seriously, the same way ideas stay in our bodies. In fact, precisely the same way, since a soul is just an idea.

19)   Yes. God is a concept for creation (one of many “goods” (here used to refer to things that are good, not valuable products)) and thus he “created” the universe. How else did it get here?

20)   He wasn’t.

21)   Again, allegory and irrelevant to my belief in god.

22)   The watchmaker analogy is a fallacy. The sun naturally kept time without artificial intervention for millennia. Nature naturally became what it is. No invisible hand came down to make us the way we are. God simply created the rules, so to speak, for how things work.

23)   He didn’t.

24)   Allegory. Not fact.

25)   For shits and giggles. No, seriously, I have no idea why the people that made this story up couldn’t have come up with a more clever way to set up a sacrifice. This story wouldn’t sell at HBO.

26)   It’s the shortened expression of a wish. “I would like god to bless America in this difficult time” is the longer, more accurate phrase. This question is like asking why people say Jesus when what they really mean is Jesus H. Christ, or some-such. And we are after bin laden because that son-of-a-bitch bombed our fucking towers, that’s why. God just saved peoples lives.

27)   I’m confused. I’ll spare you my babbling though. I am not Christian.

28)   Noah’s flood did not cover the earth for a year. More likely, some guy in a village in Mesopotamia or what is now the gulf of Suez survived some flood a long time ago and people wrote about it when they invented writing. Exaggerated a bit, huh?

29)   That’s just stupid. If you add more water, you add more mass, and that mass increases the gravitational pull of the earth. That’s why Jupiter doesn’t just “wobble off into outer space.” That’s not how gravity and space work.

30)   I know little about the Muslim faith, but I think women feel the same goodness that I feel when I do well by others. I will never know for sure, but I assume the same of men.

31)   That’s about as true as the 2012 apocalypse prediction.

32)   God is not jealous, though the people who constitute gods substance (those with the capacity to do good, or everyone) can also be jealous. And god is love, love is not jealous, and that last statement is BS. Love is not jealous, meaning to be in the experience of feeling love is to not feel jealous. Basically just saying that if you are feeling jealous, that love is not what you are feeling.

33)   Ask them when you get the chance.

34)   Noah had a really good throwing arm, that’s why.

35)   God is omniscience, not omniscient. He is all knowledge, which is to say, all knowing is god, or any experience of knowing is a good experience, even if it isn’t much good, and all good is god.

36)   Probably not.

37)   He may not get weary on his OWN, but you have to remember, god probably saved his best creations for last (I.E., beer) and probably also wanted to try them out on Saturday night. Thus, on Sunday he slept in.

38)   We ought never to “punish” for the sake of punishing. We ought also to do god’s will, by attempting to help those who do evil find a way to do good. Always, we should be searching for a way to redeem ourselves, and help others do the same.

39)   God knows no gender. (but I think of him as a dude. Who else would make a fiery explosion of fire and explosions our primary source of all energy on this planet?

40)   Worship (or “doing good&rdquo is how you get to heaven (good).

41)   Prayer is a kind of meditation, whose purpose is to center oneself and be better able to see what is right in the path ahead. Or to “communicate” with “god.” That is, to see more clearly what is good.

42)   A really cool hat, and probably drugs.

43)   Fallible men have the capacity to do good by teaching others. If we did not have the opportunity, there could be no good. Again, without evil, there is no good (and vice versa). It is the struggle that makes these things real.

44)   I know, right? But they are kind of funny.

45)   That’s absolutely correct. That’s why allegory written by grumpy, sandy old men living in caves is probably best not to take to seriously.

46)   Yea, probably not a healthy practice in principle.

47)   That’s why he also secretly built two really, really big aquariums in extra-dimensional space on the lowest deck.

48)   Again, concept, no physical manifestations allowed.

49)   Probably some kind of metaphor in one of those contradictory statements, but meh. Lots of contradictions to choose from, I mean, it is the bible.

50)   See above, on “good and evil.”

51)   It’s a metaphor for the very real conflict of good and evil in everyone.  Again, god does not “have.” God is all power and all foresight, or, more appropriately, All foresight and all power are god. There are always “battles raging” inside each of us, as we vie simultaneously for good feeling and an escape from feeling. (That ice cream bar looks so good. I wish I did not have to feel bad for stealing it, or else I wish I could simply “not feel” the bad that the act of taking it would inflict upon me.)

52)   Yea, probably.

53)   Because there are not enough mental institutions, nor room in the ones that exist, for every crazy person in my hometown, let alone the world. And also, these people are put away because they represent some kind of danger to themselves or others, not because they believe in fairies.

54)   Au Contraire; faith IS knowing. It is knowing without being able to prove. And it is what all of us must do. You cannot KNOW that anything you see before you is real. You must have faith that it is.

55)   The soul resides in the character. Wherever the character is, there is the soul. This is why potatoes ought to be let off of life support. After all, if you can’t have ideas, how can you have a concept?

56)   First, that would defeat the purpose of faith (as mentioned above) and second, he does. God is all things good, and we all innately have the capacity to know what is good, thus we know god.

57)   I have no idea. Probably didn’t exist anyways, apparently.

58)   It was a moral one. We all have the capacity to do good. It is not that god cannot sin, it is that god is not sin.

59)   Again, defeat the purpose, and he DOES. God appears before you every time you consider giving to victims of poverty in Darfur, or whether or not to send a Christmas card to your sick but distantly related and obscure family member, or whether or not to just take that soda and leave.

60)   Because that is barbaric and wrong; all of it.

61)   Heaven is the state of choosing good within a system of free will. Thus, by definition it only exists if there is also a world where there isn’t all good and freewill.

62)   Again, god does not have. God is. He is the path to salvation, because salvation is the experience of doing good, and god is all things good.

63)   He doesn’t.

64)   Those who do good experience heaven. Those who do not, do not. Writing is irrelevant, though it can certainly help.

65)   You will not burn in hell. You will either experience good, or you will not experience good.

66)   Some people believe that. I believe that to die lends significance to life, and is thus necessary for the existence of good, and, by extension, god. If no one died, life would not matter.

67)   See above.

68)   It’s probably all bull shit. Maybe he made an extra night, just for that weekend.

69)   Yes, I am sure. I know, because even when I sin, I still feel good for doing good when I do good.

70)   Yea, kind of.

71)   This is not heaven. This is a nightmare or a bad T.V. show.

72)   People hate homosexuality because people hate things they do not understand. I do not hate homosexuality, and those that do are very small, or else very deluded by very small or very deluded people.

73)   Because depriving a being of the experience of doing good is an evil act, though certainly evil can be overbalanced by good. A fetus’s capacity for experience is far less than a woman’s, but it is still evil to abort a baby when the mothers experience would be virtually unhindered. By the same logic, it would be wrong to cause a chicken unnecessary or end its life just because I felt like it, as that chicken has the (limited) capacity to experience. But certainly, for the sake of survival (far more critical to experience than whims of desire) there is nothing wrong with killing the chicken, or the fetus, as it were.

74)   Yea, because I can prove incontrovertibly that truth is impossible to know, and yet still I believe it. I have already proven to myself these things, and yet I believe, because I choose to. There can be no better reason that that.

75)   No, one must exist for the other to have meaning. Without hunger, satisfaction means nothing. Without thirst, satisfaction means nothing. Without vacuum, air means nothing. Etc.

76)   It is not the case, and yet I believe he was just talking about mustard seed biology. I was fascinated. They certainly didn’t teach me THAT in high school.

77)   Because meh darn dun gran’pa dern did toll’d me, dat’sh haw, ya durn dun dar ateeisht. En ‘e were ash infalldibled ash any o’ dem dun darn did jesus’ an all.

78)   Consciousness is not necessarily the result of a physical brain, by that line of thinking.

79)   Those that do are generally as ignorant as they are small minded, that’s why.

80)   He did. This is the success of the plan. Our experience is the end-goal, the whole point, the purpose of everything. To experience good.

81)   No, they don’t.

82)   Those other sects are wrong in their statements, then.

83)   No, but then again, with an infinite consciousness it is certainly not unreasonable for a sky daddy to be preoccupied with… well, everything.

84)   They didn’t mislead people. They spread good, and thus experienced heaven, as much or more than anyone else.

85)   Because it’s weird, and what’s weird is evil, clearly.

86)   It didn’t; see extra-dimensional fish tank, above.

87)   Without darkness, light is meaningless. The list goes on.

88)   It didn’t. It is a concept that has always battled with darkness in the hearts of we, the imperfect seeking perfection.

89)   Probably the same stuff dreams and Chuck Norris are made of: awesome.

Thank you for reading, if you have a problem with something, please respond below. Any more questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Many would call me “Atheist,” because my view of god is very much against the “sky daddy” view. But atheism is the absence of belief, which is a fallacy for most because most people just “believe” that the universe exploded out of nothing. That a vast quantity of energy and matter, all following the same uniform laws for the rest of eternity, suddenly created itself without prompting (and exploded). I believe this also, but it is none-the-less, a belief. Also I believe in logic.

NOTHING CREATES ITSELF!!!! Anyone who thinks that atheists believe that something can 'create itself' is very ignorant. That idea comes from Theists, some of whom may believe it about God.

The Big Bang singularity maybe emerged as a result of some triggering event in a 'Metaverse', maybe the equivalent of a random quantum twitch which happened to exceed some critical threshold.

Time/Existence may be positively curved in some higher dimension and ultimately fold back on itself, so either teh Big Bang or the Metaverse

Whatever, none of these fundamental questions are resolved by assuming a God, who must be just as much a part of Ultimate reality as anything else that exists.

The net total energy/matter of our Universe is zero, being made up of equal but opposite kinds of energy.

'Beliefs' about the Big Bang are based on an enormous amount of observation and measurement, so they are in a different category from the purely imaginary ideas based on the fuzzy concept of a 'God'.

I never claimed that cold did not exist without heat. I said that they are meaningless. Let me explain.

If I never felt too cold or too warm, I would never appreciate the value of warmth. This is a highly imperfect comparison, meant only to show you the direction and general feel of my argument, not outline it.

Good and evil are subjective only to a point. Some people prefer some things, but when I say "Good" I mean "Right" or "just," You can have a different opinion of what is correct, but Cultural relativism is principally wrong, in that it assumes that just because some people disagree with others, there is no correct answer. Things are not made right by tradition, but by virtue of their impact on the world and their intentions. Certainly an individual action's merit is subjective. But on a metaphysical scale, what is right and what is wrong do not change. Yes, circumstances define which principles win out, and concrete principles are supremely difficult to define. But they do exist. I believe it is our responsibility to attempt to define and follow them, and claiming they do not exist is an easy way out of this task. I also believe that we are all born with a kind of moral compass, a scale that is universal and true, and that differences of opinion are merely miscommunication and misinformation at play. That is why we must discuss things, that is why forums like this one exist. To spread and solidify knowledge.

And I sincerely apologize. Please, explain to me how reality began, because I was under the impression that there were no truly consistent theories out there. I promise you, if you can give me a better explanation than "god did it," then I will change my mind.

Here, "better" does not simply mean "more complicated," "possessed of bigger words," "or advocated by smarter (on average) people." A better explanation is one that is derived more directly from our common fundamental assumptions, such as "what we see, hear, feel, taste, or smell are true" and "logic is infallible."

No, nothing actually creates itself. I was careless in my word choice and phrasing, as I sometimes am. But this still leaves us to the question "Where did it all come from?" I believe you try to answer below:

I have trouble following your logic. I don't think it is safe to assume that your meaning of "Metaverse" is clear. Wikipedia has it as basically synonymous with the internet. By reverse engineering the more common "Universe" I came up with, roughly "Near or derivative, combined," As opposed to our universe, which would be "One combined," or all things combined into one. I doubt you meant either of these, and invite you to explain, but what I think you mean is some kind of alternate universe, which would make more sense given the etymology of meta. This, however, fails to address the spirit of the problem, as evidenced by this question: How did that universe start?

Allow me to simplify: When I talk about the Universe, I mean it in a more literal fashion. I mean, literally, everything that is. There can be no alternate, for if there IS any alternate (or more rather, if any alternate IS) then it is part of the universe, by definition. From here on, please agree to use the word "Dimension" for the purpose of completely alternate realms of existence (as you do in your original response). If anyone uses the word "dimension" to refer to its actual definition, please make this clear.

Anyways, my point is this: Big bang, metaverse, wherever you pick your starting point, please explain to me how there came to be existence.

Ah, but the fundamental assumption that some questions go beyond the natural (into the "Super" natural) does "solve" those questions, insofar as they can be solved. My only point is that, as I have encountered no explanation for the existence of existence that satisfactorily connects our being here with logical, verifiable reality, I have chosen to assume a force beyond reality in the same way one might choose to assume that the square root of two is a rational number in order to discover whether it is or not. The primary difference is that logically proving that the square root of two is not a rational number takes only a few carefully considered steps. Proving that God does not exist cannot logically be done. Until we prove that the square root of two is not a rational number, assuming that it is is the method any competent thinker would use to make aforementioned proof.

Recall the structure of a logical proof: First the assumption, then each step along the way to proving the assumption, then the conclusion.

 A proof of gods existence requires that we live and experience under the assumption that he does, as if each action we take for him were the next step in our proof. The conclusion of the proof, then, must be the moment we die (not medically dead, but irrevocably, completely dead). This final "act" is the point at which our proof comes together. If god does exist, I think then is when we will find out. If he does not, then we may not know. Some would say that we would have waisted time and energy in our lives on a fruitless attempt if he does not exist. I personally think the idea of dedicating my life to the discovery of the truth, one way or the other, is a rather happy prospect, but any who choose not to participate in this proof are welcome to do so, and assume whatever they wish.

I do not know, that in math, one must assume that the square root of two is a rational number to discover whether it is or not. I don't see where you're going with this. Looks like you're using an example of being irrational as an analog of something else that is irrational? Even if that were the case, such a working assumption in mathematics is only a tool; one would not really believe that the square root of two is a rational number until proven otherwise.

Why? Is this just a math thing? If so, then I'm just not familiar with it.

Huh?

Every deductive argument must assume some initial premises. There would be no attempt at justifying the initial premises within the same argument. They are merely assumed to be true in order to reach the conclusion.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that believing in something without evidence is the best way to discover truth.

Accidental double post. Please delete.

Hypotheses, propositions, about the possible origin of the 'Big Bang' based on extrapolating from current theories about the Laws of Physics and other established scientific principles are infinitely more 'meaningful' than anything based on 'God'. They have already suggested some observations that may point to which ones may be more likely to be true.

'Unverifiable' does NOT preclude the possibility of establishing different degrees of confidence or likelihood to various ideas. So they are NOT all of equal value.

The assertion that our senses have significant correlation with external reality is far more reasonable than the negative. Senses that convey useful, even if not 100% precise and accurate, information about external reality would  provide significant evolutionary advantage over a species with less accurate senses.

What do you consider an example of such a principle?

As I said above, It is entirely reasonable.

The Matrix is a really dumb scenario. Doesn't mean that we might not be in some simulated scenario, but that idea of using us like a battery is a very silly idea.

Of course we have to have assumptions, but they are not 'without reason'.

Deciding to believe in a God when the non-God scenario is far more consistent with modern observations and the history of the world, even if not 'provable' either way, is simply wilful ignorance, or blindness.

You seem to be following the ancient philosophical fallacy that 'knowledge' with less than 100% certainty is equivalent to no knowledge. You haven't posted here before as "Jean Chauvin", have you?

You clearly missed my point.

Abstract concepts can certainly fail.

Valid logic conclusions are only as objectively true as the input propositions they are applied to. At most it says that IF A and B etc are true, then the logical conclusions based on applying logical arguments to those propositions will also be true.

Without light there is only dark. Light is a form of energy, an actual 'thing', which can be measured. Light/Dark are not two sides of a symmetrical situation. If we did not have the capability to sense light, or we lived in a situation of permanent darkness, neither light not dark would mean anything to us. That has some resonance with your position.

It would NOT necessarily be EXACTLY that amount, only if it brought you back to precisely the state you were before.

True evil is obvious without 'good'. It only requires the non-evil, or neutral.

I will not deny that knowledge of experienced pain may enhance the enjoyment of a pleasure, but the pleasure is in no way highly dependent on it.

Your thought processes are reasonably clear to me, it is just that I see things differently.

Life only has value as it can give rise to positive experiences, ie more than the simply boring. The inherent urge to survive, to avoid danger, is clearly of evolutionary advantage, so it is no mystery why pretty much all life endeavours to avoid immediate death.

Our more conscious level of assessing the value of continued existence is more complex and variable.

Gold would have value if it actually served some use in facilitating our existence, which it doesn't, except to a degree in some technologies.

I have no intention of questioning that you are accurately describing the effect on you of those others' deaths, but that is not my reaction. Depending on the psychological state of the individual, the reaction can go either way.

I don't think you are unintelligent, just stuck in a sort of medieval philosophical/metaphysical mind-set.

Butter is 100% correct.

Butter is 100% correct, again.

Any claim otherwise is a logical fallacy.

Only fools assume forgone conclusions.

Only fools can be so mislead.

Assumptions indicate you're not emotionally removed, and impartial. The more assumptions one makes, the more it indicates emotions, and desperation.

Hope.

Hope=Insecurity

Hope=Weakness

Ever heard the expression "When the heart rules the mind"?

Lack of self discipline.

You are doing such a fantastic job at being an archetypal religious logician.

Calling yourselves 'rational' and 'logical thinkers' are the biggest positive displays of sheer stupidity that underpin, and completely surround theism.

You fools are living, breathing, walking, talking, moronic oxymorons.

You should all wear helmets so you don't hurt yourselves, stay indoors at all times, and should not be allowed to have any electrical outlets in your bathrooms.

You should thank all atheists and athesim itself for your 'kind' not having become extinct.

And your 'beliefs' and 'faith' that you think are pure intelligence, purely rational, and purely logical, would lead you to cut the 'green wire', if you needed to diffuse a nuclear bomb to save all humanity?

Right?

Good thing you clowns aren't in charge, and really intelligent, rational, and logical people are in charge.

You should worship us, as if we were gods.

You morons.

You're making what is called a fundamental attribution error (look it up), and 'projecting' that 'bias is unavoidable'.

Not only are you completely ignorant of what the scientific method is, it's simply not in your nature, to be without 'bias'.

It's inherent in your character.

You've got a handicap.

Predetermination of outcomes and self imposed positive bias.

Just like all theists.

You're all retarded, basically.

A self imposed 'condition' that you work hard to maintain.

You're masochists.

It's inane.

Your 'kind' is the reason child proof tops were invented.

Have you never heard the axiom "The benefit of the doubt" ??

It's not in any holy scripture, apparently.

So who's looking out for your best interests again?

Go ahead, drink the koolaid.

I'm sure it'll be fine...

Yes.

It's foolish, and fatalistic.

It's inept.

Using up precious time trying to summon divine intervention, that could be exponentially better used using the radio to try and call the Coast Guard?

Fcuking tool.

Get outta my way, Captain Stoopid, it's time for a mutiny. You're underqualified to be a leader. You'd not only lead us into oblivion, you'd let go of the wheel after we were heading straight into oblivion.

That's the difference between me (atheist) and you (theist).

Your 'faith' and your 'belief'.

You're a completely gullible, misguided, inept loser, who fast tracks himself into stupid predicaments, and then begs for some 'mommy' to come 'save you'.

You're irrational.

I'm a skeptic.

I don't let my emotions get the better of me.

A clear thinker.

A rationalist.

I'm a warrior. I fight to the death.

It's indicative of many flawed character traits, mainly despair, and insecurity, but also low intelligence.

You sound like you get overwhelmed very easily, and become inept.

There's no other way to describe it.

Just confirms even clearer to me, their (theist) way of thinking and rationalizing.

Go back to rubbing your 'lucky rabbit's foot', or your ancient scripture, which ever is closest to you.

That's the more logical way... 

Fcuk are you people stoopid...

And what is the "correct" answer to this and how do you arrive at the conclusion that your notion is the "correct" one.

How do you arrive at that conclusion ?

Except that what is considered good and bad has changed throughout history and throughout different cultures.

 Do you have proof of this ?

We are born without anything in our heads at all when it comes to morals. Morals are formulated through our acceptance/rejection of what we see, what we are taught, through the cultural memes of the people in our environments, and through our own perspectives as we hopefully learn and develop our ability to critically think and make decisions. We are not born with inherent morals.

---------

The way it is better considered is that is one common consequence of a general skeptical and/or naturalistic and/or scientific outlook, rather than as a foundational position. It really is just a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

Of course you can be an atheist, ie no belief in God, and still accept a whole lot of batshit crazy stuff. Human thinking is not necessarily coherent, or very consistent. 

You cannot logically conclude very much purely from a starting point of non-belief in God(s). It does not require logical thinking, or a logical, rational mind to simply not believe in God.

But it certainly is almost essential if you want to argue with Theists, or to justify atheism versus other positions.

Atheism alone is NOT a world-view, it is one aspect of many possible world-views, from the tyranny of dictators like Stalin and PolPot, the simplistic idiocy of Ayn Rand, the deep insight and understanding of some philosphers, like David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Daniel Dennett, and many scientists. Just go look up the various lists of famous 'atheists' on the Web. 

Hi Sapient,

For some reason my computer does not allow me to copy and paste your post for me to reference. But these questions are often absurd and very easy to address.

For example, the first one. Jesus did NOT fulfill all the prophesies of the Old Testament. So the question is based on absurdity. He fulfilled around 33 after His crucifixion.

Some Jews did accept Him as the Messiah. Again, the question is absurd. But you mean ALL Jews. The reason why they didn't accept Him is because they started adopting the traditions of the Talmud via Hillel and got away from the Torah and the TaNaK. They did not accept Him thus (John 1:10).

Also, the Israel was set aside for the nations (Gentiles) to be part of the Body of Christ.

You cannot rationally answer an inrattional questions. Most of these questions are irrational. I broke my rule and tried to help you, though I doubt that will work. You're too corupt and evil and immoral of a person.

Though I love ya.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Actually he fulfilled none of them until the Pauline converts who wrote the gospels backtracked through the OT to make sure he did.

They created the incident and then found the prophecy. Much of the time they still got it wrong.

GOD?  jesus?  YOU DUMB ASS ATHEIST Assholes know nothing about history so you make you make claims that are supposed to date beyond any known dates that can actually be verified. You idots talk about science and fiction as if they are related because you are stupid morons. that is why you thrive on oxy morons.  A biogenesis, science fiction?  lol

You hypocrites talk about how you despise religions that preach a creator yet you all gather on this biased  pittifull website for losers to wak off about your own religion of origins which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with scamming people propaganda.

NONE of you can disprove the fact of a creator but you all sing praises about how creation is self explanatory by non living no purpose no designer etc....

You all worship creation but you deny being theistic pagans who use references to nature and science and evolution as if hey represent intelligent people.

Nature did it or mother nature or mother earth found a way , or sciences says so or evolution finds a way to design things etc.....

then you quietly say if , perhaps , we suppose intime, we believe, it is likely..etc./..........you fucking fools

You hate god?jesus?  LOL  you have no clue about  truth and deception but you all play stupid very wellllllll

FUCK YOU  and the shit you evolved from in your dreams

So, he'd be indifferent.

He's neither here.....nor there, about anything.

Perfect!

The End

You're not very astute are you?

The myth of a creator of the universe would be no different that the inventor of the wheel, to an atheist. A god would be a craftsman.

You obviously haven't evolved to understand the distinction between having contempt for the actions of a person, vs your indifference of the person themselves.

I have contempt for suffering, torment, anguish, fear, dishonesty, confusion, terror, violence, theft, rape, child abuse, cold blood murder, tyranny..............................................Period

Take that out of religions, and they wouldn't bother me.

Neither would the first craftsman...

The Theory of Evolution is a scam?

How so?

You mean Noah had dinosaurs, air conditioning, GPS and an Ipod?

So he must have had strippers and gays as well, because they didn't become extinct.

Well, no.

But who cares who created the wheel, or if the earth was created or occurred naturally? Atheists don't.

What difference does any of that make?

It's fascinating to imagine that, yes. It's something I still can't get over, to this day. Kind of like watching sunsets. It never gets old, to me. They're beautiful.

That kind of stuff makes your blood boil, huh?

Fuck, you need to start beating off more, dude. No wonder you're so bent.

Well, no.

We don't see any activity that suggest they might exist. It's kinda hard to hate Bigfoot, if you've never encountered one, and it behaved in a contemptuous manner.

Stupid about what?

Not being like you?

That's retarded...

Don't forget to leave your email addy, to redeem your free condoms...

Are you conceiving of 'non-belief' as a position in itself?

That would seem to be pretty much covered by 'scepticism', which is typically the position which leads to atheism as one consequence. That path to atheism would indeed normally preclude believing any other wierd things.

The other attitude encompassed by such an idea is simple apathy, lack of strong concern about philosophies and anything beyond the concerns of daily life.

Anything defined as a 'non-' with regard to any positive ideology is not really pointing to anything.

Non-belief in God(s) attracts much more debate because of the very common assumption/intuition that God(s), or some kind of 'higher power', are a fundamental reality.

you may be atheist, but sure you have some spirit in you...

i was asking about the whole thing: what all the options in the account means, how to make these labels appear and everything (i understand that some of them are for donating, but the simple "atheist" and "theist"?)

i have read the rules and searched for some explanations, but found none