would an atheist world be a better one?

Posted by: RM

would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/19/05 04:42 PM

Many people who love science hate religion and the belief in a ?creator? and an afterlife. My question is: since nature always takes the path of least resistance, and therefore creates the best method to solving any problem, why did humans evolve to believe in God? What is the point in this belief? Is it responsible for the upkeep of natural balance? Or is it just a temporary flaw in human evolution that is being fixed.
It is my personal belief (and hope) that the whole world will one day be atheist and not believe in silly things like souls.

Do you agree that the world will evolve into an atheist one, or is this the way things are meant to be?
Posted by: Uncle Al

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/19/05 04:59 PM

Humanity evolved because there was no Welfare Office. Stupidity was lethal. That is a good system - primary education to adulthood.

The world works when authority, responsibility, and liability are tightly coupled. Religion specifically imposes authority while denying responsiblity and utterly renouncing liability. Religion is an abusive disaster.

The US Founding Fathers were deists. They acknowledged an amorphous god on money and benignly stowed the rest of religion in churches hoping it would never get out. Their hopes have failed as has their country in turn.
Posted by: Xennos

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/19/05 07:31 PM

Well I can see where this is going...

an atheist world would we a little less complex and more rational with out the billions of people interpreting the 2000+ year old scripts differently there would be less fighting over who is right and less nut cases in general, in the time before advanced science it was used to hold society together the explain the unexplainable in the modern world that has shifted in the sciences' favour with many of the religious beliefs disproved, people are unsure if to ditch their faith and live under the rules of science and maybe go to "hell" or to believe in faith and try to get into "heaven"
there is always that "what if" seriously from what ive read hell isnt the best place to be for eternity..

for me I, until it is explained how it all started (something a little more solid then the shotty big bang theory) and until we figure out Consciousness

ill believe that in fact it all was **Started** by some supreme being, as corney as that sounds . . but I'm not going to believe that we came from Adam and eve, I mean it has been proven time and time again that it just isn?t true
For me the books have been translated and rewritten to many times to be accurate any more, I would choose logic over a translated 2000 year old book.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/19/05 08:52 PM

I find it funny that you consider atheism and the absence of a soul in humans? When you look at yourself, not the world just yourself, what do you see? Do you see something random and unorganized a pulsating lump of matter or do you see something perfectly designed, the billions of activities, reactions, chemical, electrical or otherwise. Do you see a head which contains a most marvelous biological machine that defies logic. What about dreams, imagination, thought, intelligence, they way we eat, piss and ****, so sytematic, so well designed, so mathematical, the calculations involved whenever we walk, talk, and reason. The marvel of the eye, a television created long before we could concieve it, the need for sleep so that our brains can process the information and store it. The digestive system, the renal system and the circulatory system. The entire body and its design can never be an unplanned thing. We were created, along with everything in the universe. It's a pity that our minds are so tiny that we make the mistake of not appreciating the wonder of our creation. No wonder mankind places no value in himself and the other creatures in this world and seeks day and night to destroy himself, because of these atheistic tendencies of thinking we evolved from a ball of ****. Concerning the bible, and such books, these are spiritually discerned. Closed minds can never understand the hidden message within those texts. I feel sorry for those who are atheist, for they are in for a surprise. Ask me why I believe in God and the 'soul' and I might tell you a thing or two which may change your point of view.
Posted by: Chris Maxwell

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/19/05 09:20 PM

I agree with philege It may be difficult for some of us to believe that we can really know God, yet it is true that we can. What does God look like? When we think of God, what kind of image comes to our mind's eye? Do we see God as some sort of superpower that hits us over the head with a big stick when we have been bad? Or does our image of God seem so ethereal that we cannot even imagine that, as humans, we could possibly see Him?

Perhaps we see God in the flowers, the birds, the blue sky, the tall pine trees and the mountains, and that is God to us. Some may even view Him as a kindly old man with a white beard and robe, sitting on a golden throne someplace out there called heaven. Maybe our position is that it is impossible to see God. but atheism is a load of bull S*IT.

Such men like charles darwin corporated you're minds with his anti - god theories. evolved from fish What F**king bull sh*T.
Posted by: Chris Maxwell

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/19/05 09:26 PM

"I apologize for the language smile "

As moderator I suggest you don't repeat it or your posts will be edited. Be considerate of your audience. You do not improve your arguement with profanity.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/19/05 11:40 PM

"Such men like charles darwin corporated you're minds with his anti - god theories. evolved from fish What F**king bull sh*T."

Evolution is not "anti-god." It doesn't say anything at all about god.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/20/05 11:42 AM

My question was a scientific one concerning the structure of society, all I have as a response is a bunch of deluded, weak-minded people preaching the greatness of 'God'. The moderators keep telling us to stop letting these things turn into philosophical debates. However, when atheists and theists are mixed, a debate is inevitable. We might as well continue (until someone answers the real question scientifically).

I'll start with you, Philege, you said; "Ask me why I believe in God and the 'soul' and I might tell you a thing or two which may change your point of view." Well now I'm asking you.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/20/05 10:07 PM

Rob asked:
"Why did humans evolve to believe in God? What is the point in this belief? Is it responsible for the upkeep of natural balance? Or is it just a temporary flaw in human evolution that is being fixed."

Humans evolved a believe in natural gods as a means of explaining the unexplainable. Go to a very remote part of the planet, find native tribes, and show them a piece of technology they can not possibly comprehend. Ask them to explain it and they will come up with an explantion. A working hypothesis. One they will stick with until it is proven invaluable or incorrect. Thus we started off with worship of sun, moon, forest, bears, etc.

The religions we see today, differ only slightly from those original religions. The difference is that politicians found it easier to control populations with a personification (god is good, devil is evil, heaven is good, hell is hellish).
So at about the time that humans moved from hunter-gather to agriculture the god(s) evolved to become more powerful control tools.

The quest of science is to replace those sun, as a god, with a superior explanation, that it is a hydrogen fusion furnace with a strong gravitational field that embraces our planet.

Never forget that the primary purpose of religion used to be explanation. As science has provided that explanation more and more religion has become nothing but a control mechanism designed to tell you what is right, what is wrong, where to spend your money, who to vote for, who you can and can not sleep with and when. The technique though has never changed: Brain washing of children.
Posted by: jjw

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/21/05 01:17 AM

Better than what?
Why do people believe I God?
Is God an important part of man kinds make up?

Try starting with fear which is an important part of man kinds make up.
Move to efforts to control that fear of today, tonight and tomorrow.
Think of a solution and create an all powerful image to give you courage,
Now think of ways to get that image to help you control your fears.
Create a program of homage, prayer, sacrifices, offerings and new fears.
You now have a God to fear as a substitute for the inherent fear of life.
The only difference is that the fear of your God is subject to bargaining.
The fears you had originally were of mysterious, misunderstood happenings.

Enter science and things are understood better so you have fewer things to fear.
You may still have many fears so you can hold on to God for bargaining.

A real atheist, if it is total, likes to think there is nothing mysterious to fear about life and rejects the prospect of a God or a superior being. You may interpret this as a form of complete self sufficiency but I do not see it quite that way. No one knows the origins of Matter or the origins of Matter that can create life. It is the initial issue of the starting point that we, as a minor life forms can never know or understand from within our makeup.

So what would life be if every one was an atheist? Pointless and boring.

Jim Wood
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/21/05 03:18 AM

"would an atheist world be a better one?'
Probably not.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/21/05 07:56 AM

jjw004,
you say life would be boring yet, I didn't quite understand why. Please elaborate....
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/21/05 04:48 PM

The statement that is beyond dispute, and that should be made in regard to Rob's question "would an atheist world be a better one?" is:

It might not be a better one. But it certainly could not be a worse one.
Posted by: jjw

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/21/05 06:19 PM

Rob says to jw:
you say life would be boring yet, I didn't quite understand why. Please elaborate....

I said "pointless and boring"
Any project or conversation that is pointless is also boring to me. If an atheist feels there is nothing after death then that belief serves to make life pointless in my mind and pointless things are seen as boring to me. Religion gives people hope for something more, irrational or not, and to that end provide a mystery that will serve to keep the life cycle from boring us.
JW
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/21/05 06:32 PM

I don't know that an atheist society couldn't be worse than a religious one. Nevertheless, I'd feel more comfortable in an atheist society than I do now. I do believe that religious people - intelligent people with good will - are delusional. It's a little disconcerting to be near people who are talking to invisible friends.

jw, you find it boring and pointless now, but if you WERE an atheist, you would not likely find it that way.

There are things that I think are more important about people and societies than whether they believe in a deity.
Posted by: jjw

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/21/05 06:58 PM

Per FF to jw:
?If jw was an atheist life would not be found pointless and boring?

Life is what we make of it. So much of the every day experience of living fastens itself to us that I find it psychologically impossible to separate any of my life?s experience from my beliefs. I am not really a religious believer that concerns himself with God but I am compelled to think that there is some thing going on that is beyond our understanding. I do not want to recite what part of my life?s experience contributes to my attitude but it is compelling. It has not caused me to go to any church or practice any formal ritual relating to theology but it is there. I thought I dropped all thought of church and God when I gave up Catholicism as a young boy, and I really did. But things happen and cause ideas to change. I do not fear death so that is not a basis for my questioning ?reality? as seen by atheists. I find religious fervor highly objectionable in all forms and avoid it and those that espouse it. I can not think totally as an atheist, it is beyond my ability and my experience.
jw
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/21/05 07:05 PM

"I can not think totally as an atheist, it is beyond my ability and my experience."

That's a fair enough statement. You believe now that if the "world were atheist" (whatever that means), that you would find life pointless and boring. But while we who actually ARE atheists are few in number, not all of us find our lives boring and pointless.

Thinking the way you do, it's difficult for you to imagine that atheists could not feel the same emotions that you do. It's possible that were you an ACTUAL atheist you might feel just the way you think you would feel. OTOH, while I can't speak for all atheists, I can speak for myself (and I *KNOW* it applies to at least a few others) that we don't see our lives as either of those two things.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/21/05 10:57 PM

This one is for Rob

I'll start with you, Philege, you said; "Ask me why I believe in God and the 'soul' and I might tell you a thing or two which may change your point of view." Well now I'm asking you.

In 1978 my late brother had graduated from from University of Rhodesia with Bachelor of Science degree. He was a pronounced atheist, this I presume came from the University influence, you know 'enlightenment' etc just like you guys. Anyway, at that time in Rhodesia there was a rageing civil war, so soon after graduation my late brother was drafted into the army, and during training he was accidentally shot through the neck whilst practising with the rest of his unit on the firing range. To cut a long story short after several days of unconciousness and extensive surgery to his spinal cord he came round. The surgeon who operated on him was one of the most renouned brain surgeons in Africa at the time. He summoned our family to his office after the many hours in the operating theatre. He told us that he was very surprised that my brother was still alive since his jugular vein had been severed and he had virtually no blood in his body. To make matters worse only a small thread of his spinal cord was holding, so he cut some bone from my brother's thigh to surround this fragile portion so it could fuse with the surrounding bone and protect this small attachment. He explained to our horror that my brother was paralysed from the neck down and there was no hope of recovery. He also explained that my brother would not be able to speak as his vocal cords had been ruptured by the bullet. He actually stated that he could not understand how my brother had survived the shooting and that in his professional opinion it was a miracle that he was alive. This puzzled us. Anyway as the week went by my brother seemed to be recovering very rapidly and by end of that second week he could whisper. He indicated that I should come closer to him, so I placed my ear just above his mouth so I could hear what he was saying. This is what he told me.

"From the moment the bullet went through my neck, I found myself hurtling into the air, when I looked down, I saw myself lying bleeding on the ground, I saw the medics and other soldier surrounding me and trying to revive me, I watched everything taking place, even the army ambulance which came and picked me up. Suddenly I saw a bright light, then my entire life flashed before me, every aspect from the moment I was born to the moment I was shot and a voice spoke to me, a gentle loving voice, which told me 'William, you see your life before you, generally you have been quite good, but you lacked something, you did not believe in me, so I am sending you back one last time so that you can reconcile yourself back to me'" When I stood up again I looked down at my brother, to see he was weeping. Afterwards he only spoke about God and how good he was and that he truly did exist. Finally a priest came and gave him extreme unction and took his final confession. He explained to me that he was sorry that he never encouraged me to believe in God, and this was one of the reasons he was sent back. He told me other things spiritual which ofcourse are personal so I won't go further. He also told me that while he was on the other side he saw my late father as well as other relatives who had long passed away. He even predicted some things which would happen, and warned us to take care. This story is one of several ones I can personally vouch for as well as other members of my family. One thing I know, is that my brother was an intelligent genius, and if he after professing to be atheist can do a 360 degree about turn, there must be something in what he said. I do know, one thing he never lied to me and strangely enough we did not believe that his time was limited, we were hoping he would recover but after three weeks he passed away. Strangely enough there is a twist to the story, because I was told by him on the night he died that he had passed away. When my sister came to tell me in the morning I told her not to bother as I knew what had happened to him. She was shocked for I gave a full description of how he looked with blood running down his nose, which she had seen when she was shown his dead body. So there you have it, no one can convince me that this is made up and no one can convince me THAT THERE IS NO GOD WHO IS LOVING AND GOOD LIKE THE GOD THAT EXISTS and if only we would stop looking too deeply and be like children, believing we might gain some insight into His goodness.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/22/05 12:00 AM

When people are at their weakest, they don't think clearly. Your brother's fate, while tragic, is irrelevant to the discussion.
Posted by: jjw

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/22/05 12:07 AM

Member Philege:

That was a great story and I do believe every detail. I think that one reason some of us do not accept religion more deeply is because our belief in our own degree of intelligence is exaggerated and we are confronted with a Biblical God that behaves more human than God-like, and at times devil like. I do believe in a superior life form or a watcher, so to speak, but I pay no homage towards it.

For Member FF:

Possibly my use of the words ?pointless and boring? were unproductive. I do not see any day to day difference between those that ?believe? and those that do not. In terms of the significance of life, if there is any, I find that the mere coming and going makes character building and learning seem for naught. If out final destiny is surely dust then it makes the trip seem pointless. I never saw any dust worth looking up to and large headstones or massive art collections mean nothing at all to me. I like to think that while we can not take material things with us when the body turns to dust that there may be a place where our spirit will make use of what we have accomplished so we may get better at what counts to us. I really dislike exposing my views this way but I do enjoy the exchange of ideas.

Your life is not pointless and boring because you have us to entertain you.
Jim Wood
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/22/05 04:57 AM

Falliable wrote:
"I don't know that an atheist society couldn't be worse than a religious one."

If you mean a higher body count ... then yes it could be worse. But if you mean hypocritically siting the will of an all loving god as the justification for the body count ... no they could not.

The one huge advantage of an atheist society would be the stripping away of the hypocrisy. George Bush and Osama binLadin would no longer be able to claim they did it for Islam/Christianity. Both would have be exposed for the egotistical, self-righteous small minded bigots that they are.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/22/05 09:10 PM

Religionists don't have a lock on hypocrisy or bigotry. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/23/05 04:04 PM

I agree. But I wouldn't call either of the three you cite as atheists. All they did was replace one religion with another. They called theirs communism. But it was, in every sense of the word, a religion.
Posted by: extrasense

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/23/05 05:39 PM

Rob:
"Why did humans evolve to believe in God? What is the point in this belief? Is it responsible for the upkeep of natural balance? Or is it just a temporary flaw in human evolution that is being fixed."

An intelligent question.
The answer is, that it might be "temporary", but it is not a "flaw".
For many thousand years the Religion was and is the only practical way to convey Philosophy and Morality from generation to generation.
For the science to challenge its validity is stupid, since it has totally different abilities and goals.

ES
Posted by: Jack J.

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/23/05 11:48 PM

Religion has made civilization possible. An effective religion can make a community strong and prosperous, an ineffective one can bring it to its knees. A study I read some years back (sorry, don?t know the source or any of the really necessary details) of aboriginal tribes which found a homicide rate approaching 10 per cent, which was also true for many of the native American tribes when Columbus dropped in. Not even Somalia approaches this figure today. The world is a much kinder and gentler place (to borrow from G.W.H.B.) than it has been through the past, thanks to civilization and religion, despite its flaws.
Posted by: Rusty Rockets

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/24/05 01:46 AM

My heroes are driven by God, but I\'m glad my society isn\'t
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/24/05 02:01 AM

Good point. Their societies, while officially atheist, amounted pretty much to religions. But atheism, per se, is not sufficient. There are things about humans that are good and things about them that are not so good. And there will always be people around who will try to take advantage in whatever way they can manage.

If everyone on the earth were an atheist, tomorrow there would be some other stupid reason to kill each other. If everyone on this earth were chinese, the next day we'd find some other reason to find fault.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/24/05 02:44 AM

There are no simple solutions other than to be honset in our teachings of biology and to inspire the behaviour of children to be responsible for their behavior.

We potty train children.

We teach children how to hold a spoon.

We teach other behaviors too that violate our basic nature.

When we stop using a 2000 year old idiocy as the authoritative source for teaching we will be able to continue our progress.

How can you teach about combating a virus such as H5N1 when your authoritative source predates the discovery of viruses by millenia?
Posted by: extrasense

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/24/05 02:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
When we stop using a 2000 year old idiocy as the authoritative source for teaching we will be able to continue our progress.
See, you use term "idiocy" for Religion....

Not smart. So, the science did not teach you some things that it should have to.

e laugh s
Posted by: Jack J.

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/24/05 03:41 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DA Morgan:
[QB]

When we stop using a 2000 year old idiocy as the authoritative source for teaching we will be able to continue our progress.

That is as easy as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Science may have changed a lot in the last 300 years, but human nature has not.

There is no shortage of sensible and religious people who distinguish the difference. Science still has much to learn from religion in dealing with human nature.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/24/05 08:54 PM

Has anyone ever considered that in an Atheistic society there would be no scource of responsibilty. It is religion which makes people reflect before they act, it is religion which began the precepts of the legal systems. It is through religion mankind challenged slavery and other forms of injustice. An atheistic society would be a chaotic society where there would be no respect for human values. Modern problems are erupting because of the movement away from religion. Most religions today are shrinking and atheism is rising. As it rises so does mankind sink deeper into chaos. At least religions by and large institute order. Some of the greatest civilizations were ordered through religion of some sort. An atheistic society would in the long run destroy itself. Throughout history one can see that the absence of religion caused the demise of so many civilizations.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/25/05 01:37 PM

"It is religion which makes people reflect before they act"

No. Lots of atheists do this.

"It is through religion mankind challenged slavery and other forms of injustice."
That's only a part truth. It was also through religion that man justified slavery and other forms of injustice.

"An atheistic society would in the long run destroy itself. "
No reason at all to believe this.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 10/31/05 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Philege:
Has anyone ever considered that in an Atheistic society there would be no scource of responsibilty. It is religion which makes people reflect before they act, it is religion which began the precepts of the legal systems. It is through religion mankind challenged slavery and other forms of injustice. An atheistic society would be a chaotic society where there would be no respect for human values. Modern problems are erupting because of the movement away from religion. Most religions today are shrinking and atheism is rising. As it rises so does mankind sink deeper into chaos. At least religions by and large institute order. Some of the greatest civilizations were ordered through religion of some sort. An atheistic society would in the long run destroy itself. Throughout history one can see that the absence of religion caused the demise of so many civilizations.
You say this as if religion is the only possible way.

It is important for some sociopaths to believe in eternal punishment in order for them to behave themselves. However, I was not threatened with God's wrath when I was a child. I was asked, "How would you feel if..." (Previous to that stage of development, I was threatened with mom or dad's wrath.)

You praise religion for eliminating slavery, but for many, many centuries, religion was used as an EXCUSE for owning slaves. (The Southern Baptists exist as a separate church from the American Baptists solely to support slave ownership.)

It is quite plausible that the first rules of civilized order came about because people were more likely to survive if they cooperated with each other, rather than view each other only as competitors. Religion, I think, came about to explain the workings of nature. Later, it evolved to justify the power wielded by rulers.

Your whitewash of religion and your backhanded comments regarding atheists are not justified, IMO. (Incidentally, I don't consider myself an atheist.)
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/01/05 12:36 AM

The question was 'Would an atheist world be a better one' and I only gave my opinion. What do you mean by 'your whitewash of religion' and 'your back handed comments'. Ok, consider the Soviet Union when 'Communism' ruled the day there, they were atheistic, so why did the West fear them so much? Religion in all forms was suppressed and discouraged. Well if they were so wonderful why were people like you praying day and night for their downfall. If you don't consider yourself an atheist, what then do you consider yourself to be. The fact that in the past some wicked people chose to interpret the bible for their own twisted ends doesn't make religion bad, only the people who abused it are bad and wicked. So you think that nature made you, an intelligent living being, so complex and wonderful, therefore you must have atheistic leanings, well why don't you just admit it. Join the crowd. By the way considering the Soviet Union was atheistic, I must say, they banned a lot of immorality in various forms, (Prostitution, drugs, etc)they also sought to share all resources equally (Wasn't that wonderful)but were people happy that they were being deprived from worshiping God.Certainly not! Today, religion has sprouted once again and people there appreciate the freedom to be able to do so once again. They are much happier now that they can freely pray and worship.
Posted by:

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/01/05 06:23 AM

"Most religions today are shrinking and atheism is rising." - Philege

Support this claim, where in the world is this happening? After the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, religious fundamentalism has dominated public debate as never before. Fundamentalist movements have emerged around the world, from the Islamic Hamas and Hizbullah to the Catholic and Protestant paramilitaries of Northern Ireland, and from the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition of the United States to the Sikh radicals and Hindu nationalists of India.

"After the American presidential election in November, some liberal commentators warned that the nation was on the verge of a takeover by Christian "fundamentalists." Almost anywhere you look around the world, with the glaring exception of WESTERN Europe, religion is now a rising force. Former Communist countries are humming with mosque builders, Christian missionaries and freelance spiritual entrepreneurs of every possible persuasion. In China, underground "house churches" are proliferating so quickly that neither the authorities nor Christian leaders can keep reliable count. In much of South and Central America, exuberant Pentecostal churches, where worshipers catch the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, continue to spread, challenging the Roman Catholic tradition. And in the United States, religious conservatives, triumphant over their role in the re-election of President Bush, are increasingly asserting their power in politics, the media and culture."

http://www.theocracywatch.org/rel_inst_times_jan9_04.htm

I do not know how it is in Britian but in the United States religiousosity is on a rampant and unchecked rise. Just the idea of creationism in a public school curriculum makes me cringe : http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CMBergman.html

http://www.natcenscied.org/

I fear that religious fever is taking over the world.

Sincerely,
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/01/05 11:06 AM

I said most religions, you only speak of Islam and Christianity, check the world population of today divide it onto the various religions and make a comparison from fifty years ago, you might be in for a surprise. Also is America and Russia the 'World'? I don't think so, look at the world man. Also I speak of true religion, not people who go to church every day, shrieking and wailing to God and then the next moment they encourage their governments to exact war on other countries where thousands die and they don't blink. Where they select only countries that agree with them for United Nations assistance. Get real man.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/01/05 02:45 PM

[Philege in quotes]

"The question was 'Would an atheist world be a better one' and I only gave my opinion."

And I only disagreed with it. You claim there would be 'no source of responsibility.' I disagree whole heartedly. You say that people would not reflect before they act. I disagree. You say there would be no respect for human values. I disagree there, too. I disagree, at least in part, with everything in that post.

"What do you mean by 'your whitewash of religion' and 'your back handed comments'."

Re-read your post.

"Ok, consider the Soviet Union when 'Communism' ruled the day there, they were atheistic, so why did the West fear them so much?"

Perhaps because they were competitors of ours who boldly stated that they'd crush us?

Their ideology went way beyond atheism. They were anti-religion because organized religion is essentially another form of government. They didn't like others competing for the hearts and minds of their citizens.

"Well if they were so wonderful why were people like you praying day and night for their downfall."

You are claiming that they were our enemies BECAUSE they were atheists. They were our enemies because they CHOSE to be our enemies. Atheism just happened to be part of their ideology.

"If you don't consider yourself an atheist, what then do you consider yourself to be."

That has nothing to do with this argument, but you can call me a pantheist, I suppose.

"The fact that in the past some wicked people chose to interpret the bible for their own twisted ends doesn't make religion bad, only the people who abused it are bad and wicked."

Yes, some people are bad, no doubt about it. From my experience, that is largely unrelated to their belief or disbelief in God. Many of the atheists I've spoken to don't believe in god BECAUSE of all the evil they see.

So you think that nature made you, an intelligent living being, so complex and wonderful, therefore you must have atheistic leanings, well why don't you just admit it."

Understanding the workings of nature gives us a small window of insight into our creator. Why are you making these simplistic assertions without knowing a thing about me?

"By the way considering the Soviet Union was atheistic, I must say, they banned a lot of immorality in various forms, (Prostitution, drugs, etc)..."

So are you saying that atheists can have morals, in spite of the fact that they don't attribute them to a supernatural entity?

"...they also sought to share all resources equally (Wasn't that wonderful)but were people happy that they were being deprived from worshiping God.Certainly not!"

Apparently you think I'm a communist or communist sympathizer. I can assure you that I am not. Also, their resources were hardly shared equally -- all they did was replace one ruling class with another. I also am adamently against people telling other people what they must believe about spiritual matters. Spiritual matters are highly personal.

"Today, religion has sprouted once again and people there appreciate the freedom to be able to do so once again. They are much happier now that they can freely pray and worship."

That they are much happier now is debatable. That any added happiness they have is a result of their being allowed to follow a greater selection of spiritual paths may be true. I'm not convinced that all is peaches and cream over there, now that their brand of communism has officially fallen.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/02/05 12:14 AM

Religion, I think, came about to explain the workings of nature.

This was the reason I said
"So you think that nature made you, an intelligent living being, so complex and wonderful, therefore you must have atheistic leanings, well why don't you just admit it."

Apparently you think I'm a communist or communist sympathizer. I can assure you that I am not. Also, their resources were hardly shared equally -- all they did was replace one ruling class with another. I also am adamently against people telling other people what they must believe about spiritual matters. Spiritual matters are highly personal.

No I don't think you're communist, however you seem to support atheism, which was one of the hallmarks of Communism, I disagree with your statement that atheism was just part of their ideology. Remember the French Revolution,they also denounced religion especially Christianity, those atheistic crowds ran amok, killing and murdering an entire class of people, they even chopped of their monarchs heads. The Russian Revolution was similiar and thousands of Christians and Muslims disappeared in Siberia. There was a raging hatred for anything religious. Now who do you think fed those rebellions. Are we forgetting that it is not only God who exists, there is also his arch enemy, the devil. The devils final trump card has been to deceive the nations into thinking he and God don't exist, and he is suceeding at this. Also when I talk about religion, or religious people I am talking about the one true religion, genuine christians, i.e. people who follow Christ, who behave like christ, who follow his commandments, 'love your enemies' and 'Give the other cheek' show love and compassion for humanity, 'when someone asks, give them something else as well'. It is those that are shrinking, those that follow false and hollw religion i.e. going to church but at the same time denying God's power and authority are as good as atheists, in fact it is people like these that turn people into atheists after they tire of going to church and after which they sit in front of their televisions watching their christian governments commit war, death and destruction and rejoice, or then despise and look down on other races, that is not Christlike and therefore not Christian. It is this type of christian that is shrinking in the world today. Yet the atheists are rising, more and more people are turning from the belief in God. Look at what happened when the Tsunami struck, people blamed God, many fell away. Also the hurrican 'Katrina' see how everything descended into chaos, because people abandoned God, blaming him for the hurricane. Yet who is to blame, man is causing these things because of his abuse of the environment.
Posted by:

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/02/05 05:17 AM

"I said most religions, you only speak of Islam and Christianity"
-Philege

Patently, not true at all.

I wrote, "Fundamentalist movements have emerged around the world, from the Islamic Hamas and Hizbullah to the Catholic and Protestant paramilitaries of Northern Ireland, and from the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition of the United States to the Sikh radicals and Hindu nationalists of India." What part of Hindu nationalists did you not gather?

"Also the hurrican 'Katrina' see how everything descended into chaos, because people abandoned God, blaming him for the hurricane."
- Philege

What people blamed God? Most people in the U.S. blamed the state and federal governments for not putting in place viable levee systems in New Orleans. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4839696
http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/09/07/bush_vows_probe_of_what_went_wrong/

What does God have to do with Katrina? My family was personally affected by this Hurricane, was yours?

p.s. As to President G.W. Bush; he is an idiot. Many, in the USA, wept when he was elected over John Kerry. I feel your frustration over what he has done and has failed to do. laugh

Also (in order to stay true to the topic of the post) "would an atheist world be a better one?".
This is a philosophical question that probably can not be answered. This implies that people of religion are crazy or that atheists are amoral. Before science there was only religion. To many, scientists, science IS a power that is Greater than God.
Most of the present dominant religions help to construct morality for society. This can be beneficial, if you ascribe to those morals. Would an absence of religion imply a society without morals? Not necessarily. But it might fuse society with amorality. Who knows?

In regards to is the U.S.A. and Russia being the world? Well according to many citizens, of those respective nations, yes. But so is Germany to Germans and Japan to the Japanese. So is New York to New Yorkers lol wink

Philege, I see that religion (used properly) is important to you. I agree; if this is your notion. Extremes of religion DO frighten me.
Religion ought to be applied with "caution".

Sincerely,
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/02/05 07:40 PM

Philege,

I don?t ?support atheism,? I have no problem with atheism or atheists, though. Most of the atheists and agnostics I know are scientists of one sort or another. They generally seem to be a peaceful and inoffensive lot.

You quickly point out that bad people have used religion to further their evil intentions. I agree with that. However, you then turn around and label any evil act committed by someone who claims to be an atheist as stemming from atheism. I don?t agree with that. People seem to do things that they want to do, and then come up with the ~reasoning~ behind it after the fact. Empathy for other people and living creatures is not tied exclusively to any particular brand of religious belief, as far as I can tell.

Empathy is key, in my opinion. If someone lacks empathy, it is better for the rest of us that they believe in God and eternal punishment than other beliefs.

I am not up on French history, but I?ve never heard before that atheists were responsible for the Reign of Terror. Given that France was a Roman Catholic country both before and after the revolution, that sounds like an odd charge. Where might I investigate this?

According to this article on the Fox news website (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html) 92% of Americans believe in God, and religious belief is stronger among younger people than older. Whether that means people become jaded toward a belief in God later in life or it means that belief in God is on the increase is not something I can answer. However, it does not seem to support your claim that atheism is on the rise -- unless you're talking about western Europe. Do you know of data that supports your opinion? I was unable to locate a reference to another recent poll that I read about that said almost 80% of Americans professed to be Christians.

As to the topic of this message thread, I don?t think it matters whether a nation is run by religious people or not. The ~reasoning~ behind some conflicts would only change.
Posted by:

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/02/05 07:54 PM

.
Posted by:

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/02/05 08:09 PM

"I do believe that religious people - intelligent people with good will - are delusional." TheFallibleFiend

Wow. That is a blind statement.

Delusional says that they hold beliefs that are false. OK, PROVE that their beliefs are false. Since you can not (it is impossible), then your statement is flawed in its premise.

I understand what you mean, but unless you can prove their "beliefs" to be false then you must respect them. Calling good and intelligent people delusional is spiteful and not productive.

Don't get me wrong TFF, I like the majority of your posts and I have viewed your webpage a few times.

Just because someone holds a belief that you see as illogical does not mean that they are "delusional". Does everyone experience life the exact same way as you...? Of course not. People are exposed to vastly different perceptions and life experiences as you.. be not so quick to judge. That is my point.

Sincerely,
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/03/05 07:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mung:
.
Would an invisible world be a better one ?

And G-d saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented G-d that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And G-d said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Genesis 6 ?

" . " ?
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/05/05 11:57 PM

I am not up on French history, but I?ve never heard before that atheists were responsible for the Reign of Terror. Given that France was a Roman Catholic country both before and after the revolution, that sounds like an odd charge. Where might I investigate this?
- soilguy

I remember when I was a child in an orphanage where I grew up as a strict Roman Catholic, the nun who taught us religious studies read stories about the persecution of Christians during the French Revolution. She read some thrilling stories about how the worship went underground because all the churchs and bibles were destroyed. I will try to find this book for you and will post the details on this site. Oh you have no idea how wild the French people became especially towards Christians, many were guillotined, thousands and thousands. Ofcourse after Napoleon restored order, some of the christians who had fled the country, returned and re-established the churches, but the horros of the revolution were never forgotten.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/07/05 03:30 PM

A brief google search, using the terms +"reign of terror" +atheist, brought up this link:
http://www.geocities.com/robespierre_et_saintjust/history.html

The excerpt in question:

"The issue of religion and national spirituality was also one heavily debated. In November of 1793, the Convention aspired to rid France of Christianity, which it believed was an unsound foundation. They proclaimed a new Religion of Reason, replacing the Roman calendar with their Revolutionary calendar, and closing down churches. Jacques-Ren? H?bert, an atheist, and his political club backed this decision, although the majority of the common French people heartily disagreed with it. Robespierre, realizing this radical movement could be the undoing of the entire Convention, fought against it. March of 1794 brought about the arrest and execution of H?bert and his followers..."

[Incidentally, your post on this website was the 41st link on that google search.]

In any event, while some radical atheists did have a hand in part of the Reign of Terror, they can hardly be blamed for it.
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/08/05 08:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
would an atheist world be a better one?
From experience, absolutely not. A rock [planet] without creatures is better, one without man, or beast, or the creeping thing, or the fowls of the air. Better yet, rocks [planets] without creatures, ones without man, or beast, or the creeping thing, or the fowls of the air. But the giants [dinosaurs] in the earth in those days, before the sons of God [Adam, Jesus, Muhammad] came in unto the daughters of men (H. sapiens), they will be missed.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4944

Archaeologists in Israel may have unearthed the oldest evidence of fire use by our ancestors. The site, on the banks of the Jordan River, dates to about 790,000 years ago. There are older sites in Africa, but the evidence from these is much more hotly contested.The moment that our ancestors discovered how to control fire has long occupied an iconic place in the popular imagination. How many years ago was that last uni-polar-flip anyhow?

Just rocks are better.
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/08/05 09:19 AM


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3670017.stm

The Uni-Polar-Flip Two (2) Witnesses:

Uni-Polar-Flip Witness No. 1
Uni-Polar-Flip Witness No. 2

Just rocks are better.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/09/05 10:58 PM

Garry Denke, thanks for your posts. Concerning the Peking man, is this supposed to confirm that the Bible and books like that are untrue. That skull may belong to another species altogether, perhaps some ape like humanoid which died out eons ago. I don't think this proves anything. Besides most of these remains were buried and the pressure of the earth may have distorted the decay of their atoms, creating erroneous carbon dating. Apparently atoms under extreme pressure decay more rapidly.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/10/05 04:02 PM

"Apparently atoms under extreme pressure decay more rapidly."

I think you're wrong about that. See: Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/10/05 10:43 PM

I think you're wrong about that. See: Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective

You see they are discussing rocks, ofcourse there would be no change to outside surface rocks. I am writing about buried fossils, there is a big difference there. You know yourself how diamonds are formed by extreme pressure and what are diamonds made of.The molecular pattern is influenced by extreme pressure. So these fossilised remains atoms as I stated (I will try to find the material to support my claims) decay much more rapidly due to the pressure sustained over time. This has severely distorted carbon dating of fossilised remains whose dating due to the changes have become like rock.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/10/05 11:17 PM

I really cannot understand how one can embrace atheism, one doesn't need to go further then oneself. How can a sophisticated human being have been created by accident. Then that trully means we are alone in this universe. Note how the moon and the sun are so different in size and yet are positioned so that they appear exactly the same size in the sky. Note how the moon brightly illuminates to give light at night.
By the way, did you ever consider how the suns rays are converged by the curvature of the atmosphere to give us warmth. Out in space the sun seems distant from our planet, it is the curvature of the atmosphere which acts as a magnifying glass that makes the sun appear large to us. Have you ever noticed how when the sun and moon sets they appear larger. Scientists have not yet found out that the upper layers of the sky form a globe around the earth. This is what heats our planet. The destruction of these upper layers are what is causing the curvature to change leading to change in the refraction. This coupled with the emitted gases is what will destroy this perfectly planned planet. Think about how we see in colour, why are flowers brilliantly coloured. Insects dont see those colors they see something else. So what were flowers made so beutiful for. How come so much on this planet is edible for man, who planned this. All the fruit, grain, meat. How these are digested by bacteria which are benevolent to man. Come on, be serious, how can you even dare consider that there is some greater power out there. Throughout my life I have heard God's voice, he speaks to me from the time I was a child I conversed with Him and He has assisted me many times. In 1990 my wife became pregnant and after three months she developed odema from high blood pressure. My doctor phoned me one afternoon to come urgently to his surgery. He explained that my wife and unborn child were to be hospitalised and recommended an abortion to save her life. I refused, not out of selfishness but because I knew God could intervene and save them both. I prayed intensely to God to save my wife and child. God told me not to worry, everything would be alright, he even dried the tears right before my eyes. Anyway, for the rest of her term of pregnancy she was hospitalised and by the seventh month her condition was such that they decided they would have to remove the child from her womb. They carried out the operation and my poor son was so small and tiny, the doctor who delivered him told me afterwards that three times his heart stopped beating, but they managed to revive him (Strange don't you think) The doctors were convinced that the child would be abnormal because he too had odema, in fact the Paeditrician who attended to him told me personally, that the child would be abnormal, either blind or brain damaged. Today, my son is well and healthy, and absolutely normal. I am glad that I have a God who loves not only me, you all as well and if only you would discount your foolish belief that He does not exist, you might hear His voice and he might soften your heart to understand Him. Don't look any further than yourself for you are made in His image, and His likeness.

Yes this life is difficult, and what we see around us makes us wonder, but then faith in His goodness will make you see the light.
Posted by: Garry Denke

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/11/05 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Philege:
... Concerning the Peking man, is this supposed to
confirm that the Bible and books like that are untrue.
Actually the above two (2) witnesses, Homo erectus and Homo ergaster, who observed the last Uni-Polar-Flip (universal polar flip) roughly 790,000 years ago, passed down their knowledge of Uni-Polar-Flips (universal polar flips) by oral tradition to Homo sapiens, being that same knowledge of the vanishing Sun and stars recorded in biblical works.

Three day vanishing Sun and stars

It's not that big of a deal, Philege,
the same taught by Jesus Christ.

Peking Man (called Beijing Man), also called Sinanthropus pekinensis (currently Homo erectus pekinensis), is only an example of Homo erectus. The remains were first discovered in 1923-27 during excavations at Zhoukoudian (Choukoutien) near Beijing (Peking), China. The finds have been dated roughly 250,000-400,000 years ago in the Pleistocene.

Peking man (Wikipedia)

Thus no, Philege,
not Peking man.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/14/05 02:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Philege:
I think you're wrong about that. See: Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective

You see they are discussing rocks, ofcourse there would be no change to outside surface rocks. I am writing about buried fossils, there is a big difference there. You know yourself how diamonds are formed by extreme pressure and what are diamonds made of.The molecular pattern is influenced by extreme pressure. So these fossilised remains atoms as I stated (I will try to find the material to support my claims) decay much more rapidly due to the pressure sustained over time. This has severely distorted carbon dating of fossilised remains whose dating due to the changes have become like rock.
Radioactive decay has been shown not to be affected by pressure, heat, the arrangment of other atoms in the molecule, or the state of electron orbitals. The article for which I provided a link explains that.

C14 dating is generally not done on fossils, because of the relatively short half-life of C14. C14 dating is completely unreliable beyond 50,000 years, and a number of archeologists won't even pay it much attention beyond about 35,000 years (according to the archeologists I've worked with). There are other known issues with it, including greater amounts of C14 in the atmosphere tens of thousands of years ago, and its failure to reliably date organic matter near the poles.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/14/05 03:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Philege:
I really cannot understand how one can embrace atheism, one doesn't need to go further then oneself. How can a sophisticated human being have been created by accident. Then that trully means we are alone in this universe. Note how the moon and the sun are so different in size and yet are positioned so that they appear exactly the same size in the sky. Note how the moon brightly illuminates to give light at night.
The atheists I know don't "embrace" it, they just came to that conclusion. Few are militant atheists, they just haven't seen evidence that points them toward a belief in a monotheistic-type god.

Viewing anything from a position of complexity ["How can a sophisticated human be created by accident?"] is no way to figure out how it works, what makes it tick, or how it formed. Your musings about the apparent sizes of the sun and the moon mean what? If they didn't appear to be the same size, what would be the consequences? If the moon didn't light up the night sky (and it only does so for a part of the month), would you then be in awe of God's wisdom for allowing us such perfect darkness at night?

Like most religionists, you have your beliefs, and you fit all that you see into it. I prefer to develop my beliefs based on what I see.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/14/05 11:28 PM

Like most religionists, you have your beliefs, and you fit all that you see into it. I prefer to develop my beliefs based on what I see.

I don't know what the fuss is all about. I am only trying to give my opinion. Why is it that if someone writes about atheism you keep quiet? Is that because you also prefer to be blind and not look to others for answers? I am only responding to the question and what others have written so why do you find what I say offensive.
Are you afraid to be convinced? I pointed out the fact about the moon and the sun because like I wrote before how could it be coincidental that the two cetestial objects appear the same size in the sky. This is because whatever created the moon and the sun in their respective positions did so deliberately not accidently. What about your your human body and it's wonders, you don't write anything about that accident? Also did you not read my notes about my premature son's birth and survival (Another accident I presume) these things happened to me and I would not lie to you. Do you presume I am someone who lives in a church that you refer to me as a 'religionist'. I found God when he revealed himself to me and he most certainly is not what religionists consider him to be. It was my hope that you could see another perspective. Not the frustration that religion can bring. Anyway this is my final post on this subject and I certainly know, that one day you will call out to God.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/15/05 02:55 PM

blind?! -coming from a theist. I'm laughing.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/15/05 03:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Philege:
I don't know what the fuss is all about. I am only trying to give my opinion. Why is it that if someone writes about atheism you keep quiet? Is that because you also prefer to be blind and not look to others for answers? I am only responding to the question and what others have written so why do you find what I say offensive.
Are you afraid to be convinced? I pointed out the fact about the moon and the sun because like I wrote before how could it be coincidental that the two cetestial objects appear the same size in the sky. This is because whatever created the moon and the sun in their respective positions did so deliberately not accidently. What about your your human body and it's wonders, you don't write anything about that accident? Also did you not read my notes about my premature son's birth and survival (Another accident I presume) these things happened to me and I would not lie to you. Do you presume I am someone who lives in a church that you refer to me as a 'religionist'. I found God when he revealed himself to me and he most certainly is not what religionists consider him to be. It was my hope that you could see another perspective. Not the frustration that religion can bring. Anyway this is my final post on this subject and I certainly know, that one day you will call out to God.
Now wait a minute. Aren't YOU writing about atheism? You can't understand why anyone would "embrace atheism?" I'm kind of new here, and have not seen anyone promote atheism over other beliefs. In fact, you're the only one who has asked me what my personal beliefs are. (In one of my first posts, incidentally, I responded to someone who claimed that something-or-other was evidence against God. I disagreed.)

I don't see why you think it's a problem for me to disagree with you and explain why I disagree with you. I have not been offended by anything you've said.

If everything is a result of cause and effect, it is conceivable that nothing is "coincidence." That doesn't mean that the sun and moon's apparent size when viewed from Earth was ordered by some mysterious supernatural entity.

The human body IS amazing, but it was clearly not designed from scratch to be what it is today. An engineer would be fired for designing the human eye the way it is, or for wrapping the prostate gland around the urethra.

I know you were hoping to make others see things from your point of view. Ridiculing other peoples' points of view, however, is not a good plan of action, IMO.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/15/05 11:20 PM

Unfortunately, I do not think you have explained why you disagree with me. In fact you referred to me as a 'Religionist'. I have tried to point out that atheism cannot exist because there is a God. Also I felt that the absence of religion would bring chaos, more chaos than religion brings. Imagine if everyone was an atheist, then people like you would be crying out for religion. Maybe some people like to go against the grain and maybe thats a good thing, variety, the spice of life. Anyway lets agree to disagree and let the matter rest. I guess it appears selfish of me to try and convince people of the futility of atheism. Shame what a lonely life they will have especially towards the end.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/16/05 10:08 AM

Fool! Listen to yourself, you talk as if you've got everything figured out, when in fact, you are deluded. You preach the importance of religion and talk about the existence of "God" as if it were fact. Where is your proof? The sun and the moon appear to be the same size, the human body works; there MUST be a God because if there wasn't one, we'd all be alone. Unfortunately for us, if we wish something to be true, that does not make it so. So, the fact that you fear being alone, and oblivion, won't make these things not- true. It takes a strong person to accept true reality, and for your information, I don't "cry out for religion", in fact, I think no atheist does.
By the way; (x + 2)^2 = (x^2 + 4x + 4), not (x^2 + 4), even though intuition may tell you it?s like that and you WANT it to be like that to save you some working out, that?s just not the way it is.
Posted by: dirtydog

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/16/05 09:02 PM

Philege have all the answers.....will have eternal life and never grow old..never have teeth fall out and always be happy....just wait and see
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/16/05 09:13 PM

Oh, so you are an atheist! Well you are the biggest FOOL in this forum because even an idiot like me knows that God exists! Shame for you.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/16/05 10:26 PM

Rob,

Christ tells me to consider other?s needs before my own ? if everyone did this, the world would be a very different place. He tells me to turn the other cheek and to make no enemies but to treat those who call me an enemy with love and respect. I am commanded to forgive others endlessly and to give (freely and with no thought of reward) to those who are in need. I am told to treat material goods as of fleeting and little value.

In effect, the message is to value others. Any Christian who does not do this to all others is gravely mistaken.

This message is in stark contrast to the message of contemporary Western culture where I am urged to put myself before others.

Television is the greatest teacher of ideas and attitudes ? billions of pounds spent on advertising attest to this.

Televisions message through advertising (and therefore a picture of what humanity values and is telling itself) is as follows:

I don?t drive the right car,
Or have a big enough house - with enough appliances.
My clothes aren?t new enough or stylish enough,
My hair isn?t the right colour or shiny enough or even strong enough ? split ends are a disgrace, as is dandruff.
My white?s aren?t white enough.
My skin is too wrinkled and not tanned enough.
I don?t holiday in the right places or eat at good enough restaurants.
I am too fat or just the wrong shape.
I don?t eat enough fast food.
I don?t have enough debt.
My breasts aren?t big enough.
My teeth aren?t white enough or are too crooked.
My lipo hasn?t been sucked enough.
I am not famous enough.
And on?
And on?

This is what we think is important today.

I believe that when we bury our spiritual nature we create a vacuum that has to be filled with something (see above).

In my opinion this world will not be a better one if it is entirely atheist.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/17/05 09:46 PM

Philege have all the answers.....will have eternal life and never grow old..never have teeth fall out and always be happy....just wait and see.

When did I say that ..will have eternal life and never grow old..etc.

When one looks at this world, does one not see how the trees produce oxygen for us and we produce carbon dioxide for them, such an organised and arranged order. (An accident, com'on!?)The formation of clouds, which weigh thousands of pounds and still float, see how they form billowing bodies that flow with the air current, lightning and thunder, rain how it forms in due season in organised and arranged patterns that we still don't understand today (Oh we think we do! Hey Rob)Funny how fossilised oil was made just in time for us to use it for fuel etc., the development of the earth, mankind and the animal kingdom. If all this cannot convince you then I certainly do not have the answers, anyway, please remember to scrounge me for a drop of water when you and Rob are scorching in hell. I will be looking out for you if I make it. By the way you are lucky because Jesus said 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God' So because you and Rob are 'Poor in spirit' being obvious atheists then the Kingdom of Heaven will certainly be yours.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/17/05 10:40 PM

'If all this cannot convince you then I certainly do not have the answers, anyway, please remember to scrounge me for a drop of water when you and Rob are scorching in hell.'

- Philege, elsewhere Rob has said that us believers make him sick. I am sad to say that I can see why.

Blacknad.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/18/05 04:26 AM

How pale is the mirror when we see ourselves reflected in it. How strange the image to our eyes where once we thought ourselves so wise. Let peace be your guide and all your actions will be righteous. Be thou self-righteous, and all the reflection cannot erase a single drop of it.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/18/05 08:38 AM

Amaranth,

I am not sure whether you are telling me off for being self-righteous (and doing it in some style too).

If so, I have simply written what Jesus asks of me and have not commented upon my ability to uphold such - which is mostly woefully inadequate.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/18/05 04:38 PM

Blacknad,
I have no problem with what you have written. It pains me to see others acting as if they are above reproach. But who has ears to hear, they will hear, and those who have eyes to see, will see. All we see is in some way a reflection of ourselves, and we ought to look at ourselves critically once in a while. Who was it said to cast out the beam in thine own eyes before complaining of the mote in thy neighbors? wink

"Amaranth"
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/21/05 08:50 AM

"The formation of clouds, which weigh thousands of pounds and still float."

Philege the foolish,
Now I see what your problem is; you're uneducated. Therefore, I forgive you for believing in God and all that riff - raff. Tell you what, read some books on; physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics, then if you still believe in God- we are mortal enemies. If not, we are friends.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/21/05 08:52 AM

Blacknad,
so this is where you've been.

"- Philege, elsewhere Rob has said that us believers make him sick."

US believers, I thought you said you were an atheist.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/21/05 02:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Blacknad:
Christ tells me to consider other?s needs before my own ? if everyone did this, the world would be a very different place. He tells me to turn the other cheek and to make no enemies but to treat those who call me an enemy with love and respect. I am commanded to forgive others endlessly and to give (freely and with no thought of reward) to those who are in need. I am told to treat material goods as of fleeting and little value.

In effect, the message is to value others. Any Christian who does not do this to all others is gravely mistaken.

This message is in stark contrast to the message of contemporary Western culture where I am urged to put myself before others.
That's all fine and good. Religions usually offer a good way for people to get along with each other. Do people also have to believe in magic though? That is where relgions get society in trouble.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/21/05 03:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Philege:
When one looks at this world, does one not see how the trees produce oxygen for us and we produce carbon dioxide for them, such an organised and arranged order. (An accident, com'on!?)The formation of clouds, which weigh thousands of pounds and still float, see how they form billowing bodies that flow with the air current, lightning and thunder, rain how it forms in due season in organised and arranged patterns that we still don't understand today (Oh we think we do! Hey Rob)Funny how fossilised oil was made just in time for us to use it for fuel etc., the development of the earth, mankind and the animal kingdom.
As I've said in the past, you insist on approaching the world from a point of complexity, and claim it is too complicated to understand in any way, unless magic was involved.

You don't have to abandon your religion in order to learn about the sciences. For a person with strong spiritual beliefs, learning about the scientific explanation for the things you mention above would only strengthen your wonder at it all.

Quote:
If all this cannot convince you then I certainly do not have the answers, anyway, please remember to scrounge me for a drop of water when you and Rob are scorching in hell.
If the carrot doesn't work, beat him with the fear stick!
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/21/05 03:12 PM

Stop promoting religion; it makes people 1. Undervalue them selves because they believe they are inferior to some ?supreme being? 2. Undervalue their lives because they believe that when they die the will continue to live in ?another dimension.?
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/21/05 09:27 PM

Rob,

I have not stated anywhere in this forum that I am an atheist.

As for promoting religion - I spend most time on this site reading the science threads - I find them fascinating and I am learning much as a result. But I respond to posts when they knock belief - and do so in a public forum, as I have the right to - just as you have the right to knock my beliefs.


Rob - "Stop promoting religion; it makes people 1. Undervalue them selves because they believe they are inferior to some ?supreme being?."

REP: I value myself, as I value other individuals. The fact that I was created for a purpose gives me a very high inherent value.

In fact, if I were to believe that we are mere products of chance then I am rightly justified in believing that we are utterly without value. The universe knows not or cares not that we are here - and will know not or care not when we are gone. Nothing will regret our passing, we will not be missed, and none of our achievements will remain.

I do not 'believe' so that I can place value upon myself, but value of oneself is a by-product of belief.


Rob - "2. Undervalue their lives because they believe that when they die the will continue to live in ?another dimension.?"

REP: I value my life in the present as do many other believers. I am asked to be a good steward of this planet and to care for others around me. In no place does the Bible give believers the right to vacate their responsibilities to this present life.

Those believers who undervalue life are missing the point and are representative of a portion of the general poulation who also do not value their life - who are happy not to learn or explore this existence, but are content to sit in front of TV or whatever else they find pleasantly distracting and add no value to the world community.

You do not have to look solely at believers to find people who undervalue life.

It is a common misconception that religion propagates this kind of inactivity.


Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/21/05 10:06 PM

Soilguy,

You said - "That's all fine and good. Religions usually offer a good way for people to get along with each other. Do people also have to believe in magic though? That is where relgions get society in trouble."

REP: Religion without God at its centre is useless. Religion without God is just a moral framework and has no more value than any other relative moral framework.

It comes down to authority - the Bible tells me not to lie - I accept its authority.

Soilguy, can you explain to me (obviously without reference to authority), why it is wrong to lie?

In fact, can you explain to me why the Nazi holocaust was wrong?

I believe it was wrong, but for very different reasons to you.

What is to stop me from replying to everything you say about why it was wrong with the statement, "Ah, but that's what you say."?

If there is no magic in religion, ie. 'no God or supernatural', then there is no authority, and therefore no morality.

Once again, I do not believe so that I can have morality - but it is a by-product of belief.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Philege

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/21/05 10:42 PM

"The formation of clouds, which weigh thousands of pounds and still float."

Philege the foolish,
Now I see what your problem is; you're uneducated. Therefore, I forgive you for believing in God and all that riff - raff. Tell you what, read some books on; physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics, then if you still believe in God- we are mortal enemies. If not, we are friends.

I beg your pardon Rob, what if I told you that I have a Bachelor of Science (Double Hons)degree in Botany, Zoology as well as being a qualified Chartered Accountant. Very uneducated indeed. I have read books on Physics;Chemistry and especially Biology and these have served to reinforce my belief in God, our little knowledge is nothing compared to the knowledge God has. Because everything in this world consists of those very subjects you mention. I wrote in a previous posting some of the reasons why I firmly believe in God. Read about my son and my late brother. Those experiences are 100% true and not fabricated. By the way I also rely on my faith to believe in God. I accept him maybe thats why I can speak to him sometimes. You do not know a millimetre of the truth yet. I can only pray for you that one day you will find God, or more correctly He will find you. I thank you for considering me foolish, but I am feeling wise because I believe in the One True Everlasting GOD! I challenge you also to read the scriptures with a prayer to God for understanding, you may be splendidly surprised.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/22/05 10:59 AM

sigh
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/22/05 03:08 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blacknad:
Soilguy,

You said - "That's all fine and good. Religions usually offer a good way for people to get along with each other. Do people also have to believe in magic though? That is where relgions get society in trouble."

REP: Religion without God at its centre is useless. Religion without God is just a moral framework and has no more value than any other relative moral framework.

It comes down to authority - the Bible tells me not to lie - I accept its authority.

Soilguy, can you explain to me (obviously without reference to authority), why it is wrong to lie?


It is wrong to lie because the people around you learn that you are not trustworthy, and your word is devalued (rightfully) in comparison to that of others.

In fact, can you explain to me why the Nazi holocaust was wrong?

If we treat others with disrespect, and murder is the ultimate disrespect, we can expect to be treated no better. Humanity thrives on cooperation, and suffers otherwise. It's our nature.

I believe it was wrong, but for very different reasons to you.

Are you saying you think it would be OK, if it were not for the threat of Eternal Punishment?

What is to stop me from replying to everything you say about why it was wrong with the statement, "Ah, but that's what you say."?

Nothing. After all, it IS what I say, and nothing more. You are getting the point of view of someone who behaves morally, yet doesn't believe in a father-type God, and expects no afterlife. All I'm saying is that religion isn't required in order for a person to behave in a decent manner.

If there is no magic in religion, ie. 'no God or supernatural', then there is no authority, and therefore no morality.

I will agree that there are some people who would do whatever they think they could get away with if they did not fear punishment in an afterlife. Plausible benefits for believing in the supernatural do not constitute, for me, a reason to believe in the supernatural.

Once again, I do not believe so that I can have morality - but it is a by-product of belief.

OK. I can agree that there is more than one pathway to moral behavior.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/22/05 11:19 PM

Soilguy - thanks for taking the time to respond,

I like the bold - I think I'm going to nick it smile

Anyway I only answered the question 'why can't you have it without the magic?'- I was not for one moment trying to suggest that any of this was a reason to believe.

You said - It is wrong to lie because the people around you learn that you are not trustworthy, and your word is devalued (rightfully) in comparison to that of others.

REP: You have given a reason why lying can have its downside - this is not a reason why it is wrong. In fact if you can lie and get away with it, there can be many advantages to lying.

The argument you are giving is a utilitarian one and unfortunately, without something or someone in authority, this is how all morality must be framed.

If we treat others with disrespect, and murder is the ultimate disrespect, we can expect to be treated no better. Humanity thrives on cooperation, and suffers otherwise. It's our nature.

REP: Again, this is a utilitarian argument. Accordingly, if I don't care how others will treat me if I murder, why then should I not murder. In fact if I am a dictator, and want to murder, what have I got to fear - my people probably already have no respect for me - but they fear me, which is good enough. Strength wins.

It may be true that humanity thrives on cooperation - but also many individuals throughout history have thrived by killing their competition. Why should they buy into your cooperation? And who gave you the right to force then to?

It's our nature.

REP: Countless murders would seem to say not. Even according to evolution, it is not within our nature to cooperate corporately, but only within our sub-group.

Are you saying you think it would be OK, if it were not for the threat of Eternal Punishment?

REP: Eternal punishment has nothing to do with it. I believe it is wrong because we are made in the creator's image and He has accorded value to us and told us what is in our best interests.

As I have stated elsewhere:

"In fact, if I were to believe that we are mere products of chance then I am rightly justified in believing that we are utterly without value. The universe knows not or cares not that we are here - and will know not or care not when we are gone. Nothing will regret humanity's passing, we will not be missed, and none of our achievements will remain."


Nothing. After all, it IS what I say, and nothing more. You are getting the point of view of someone who behaves morally, yet doesn't believe in a father-type God, and expects no afterlife. All I'm saying is that religion isn't required in order for a person to behave in a decent manner.

REP: I agree with you completely, although much of what we perceive as right or wrong has come out of a Judeo-Christian tradition. But I would add that authority IS required for you to be able to state that someone else's actions are wrong.

Plausible benefits for believing in the supernatural do not constitute, for me, a reason to believe in the supernatural.

REP: No, for me neither.

OK. I can agree that there is more than one pathway to moral behaviour.

REP: Once again I agree. But I do not think there is more than one pathway to define moral behaviour.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: soilguy

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/23/05 05:46 PM

So even if the authority is imaginary, it is required?
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 11/23/05 11:51 PM

Soilguy,

All I am saying is that an objective moral framework is not possible without an authority or a referent.

We can frame morality in different ways, for example, as the consequentialists might, but it is all relative and open to debate.

But then having said that, even if we accept a Christian moral framework morality is left open to subjective interpretation - just a bit less so.

And no, I would not want to have an imaginary authority, even if it did confer some benefits. I am more interested in the truth, warts 'n all. I just happen to believe there is an authority, for other reasons.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/08/05 08:52 PM

for stupid reasons, no logical proof, just sentimental and rich-in-emotion rubbish, i'm guessing.
No offence.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/09/05 12:02 AM

Rob,

I really don't know where your strong dislike of anyone who dares to believe in anything not scientifically provable comes from. I would urge you to chill out a little - it's not worth getting so upset about.

As for proof (unfortunately non-empirical - but philosophically speaking, a weak proof, and one that is strengthened when combined with other weak proofs).

I have time and again seen people's lives transformed beyond belief when they have had a real encounter with Christ. And I used to work as a counsellor and know what change is possible through therapy, and also what change is possible through medication or even mind altering recreational drugs. Not one of these vehicles for change can even remotely shadow the complete reversal of utterly broken people, sometimes suicidal people that I have witnessed.

And of course I am one of them.

Now feel free to discount what I say - feel free to underestimate the degree of personal transformation I have seen, belittle me, call me a liar, call me ignorant, call me gullible, call me stupid, illogical, sentimental and emotion-rich - I won't be offended.

But none of that will change the veracity of what I say - not one iota.

Now as a man who has more than a passing interest in science, I am sure you would not expect me to deny what I have witnessed and experienced first hand, because I know enough about psychology to know that what I have seen is unparalleled elsewhere within society.

People who come to Christ find their lives transformed beyond recognition, and for those, like me, that have had a crappy experience of life there is peace and more importantly hope (for this life - not the pie in the sky next life that you would detest).

It would seem, from all that you say, that you would like to deny me this, so that you can have your religion free planet.

Yours pretty much unoffendably,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/09/05 12:06 PM

"It would seem, from all that you say, that you would like to deny me this, so that you can have your religion free planet."
This statement says to me "ignorance is bliss, leave me alone." Ignorance is only bliss for the educated, as we laugh at the ignorant, that's where the bliss comes from.
I'm fine (not totally) with people believing that there is a higher purpose to their seemingly irrelevant actions throughout life. But when people spend their time and money in churches and pray whilst on hijacked planes instead of doing EVERYTHING in their power to fight for their life, I get annoyed.
Religion tells people not to be selfish, and care for others. Apart from pre-programmed codes of behaviour, the only thing stopping a human from killing their own kind, in self-defence, is pure, raw selfishness. It's funny because here we see idiots applying logical thought to their actions; they weigh out their small odds of survival against their attacker and compare it to an eternity in paradise which would be sabotaged if they were to kill their attacker. So what do they do -pray. It's just sad, very, very sad.
Posted by: Beaker

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/09/05 09:48 PM

To continue your analogy of people praying on a hijacked plane, they don't fight the hijacker who is, presumably, armed and quite willing to kill them because they fear for their lives (small picture - they get stabbed/shot they die, not big picture - plane crashes they die). Heroism is a lack of time to consider the facts. They pray in the hope the someone more powerful than themselves will intervene, if an armed SAS lad was on the plane everyone would be asking him to help not praying to God. Religion as a whole, with singular of multiple deities, is the bases of a moral frame work for society, the installed belief in an authority figure who is inescapable and infallible. Fear is what drives all human kind, a sad fact that the many governments of the world are cashing in on at the moment. The fear of death, the fear of failure, the fear of isolation. These are the things which drive us. "Morality is the herd instinct in the individual" Oscar Wilde.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/10/05 03:24 PM

exactly
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/12/05 03:42 PM

But there are other ways to do this and not have people being so stupid. I feel ashamed every time I think about aliens picking up radio the signals of the god channel.
Posted by: Beaker

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/12/05 08:25 PM

Intelligent life emerged on this planet (to a greater or lesser extent) so it must have on other planets. Belief in deities has occurred in every culture I have heard of, this has probably happened on other life bearing planets as well. I?ve got no problem with religion, only the exploitation of it and when it leads people to harm other because of it.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/13/05 10:27 AM

Rob said - 'It's funny because here we see idiots applying logical thought to their actions; they weigh out their small odds of survival against their attacker and compare it to an eternity in paradise which would be sabotaged if they were to kill their attacker. So what do they do -pray. It's just sad, very, very sad.'

REP: Here is either a huge misconception or a huge generalization.

Generalization: Are you saying that all religions have an expectation that no follower can take another life nuder any circumstances and still be acceptable to their god? Because?

Misconception: Christianity certainly says no such thing. Christ tells his followers they should do no harm to anyone else. This has no bearing upon whether they remain acceptable to him or not. You have shown this misunderstanding in other posts. People are not acceptable to Christ based upon whether they keep rules or not.

So any believer who was faced with an attacker on a plane would not be struck off if they chose to defend themselves or others with lethal force.

Your repeated statements about religion preventing people from living in the real world are mistaken and show a lack of understanding.

I would not attempt to bring science into disrepute by focusing on crackpot psuedo-scientists or Nazi Vivisectionists or even Hiroshima - but you do not extend the same sensible courtesy to religion.

Regards,

Blacknad
Posted by: Justine

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/13/05 07:15 PM

Yes, I think the world COULD be a better place if we were all atheists. Compassionate atheists. Especially, if we were all able to respect the balance of our earth and live in harmony with our environment and fellow creatures.
But, I think the world COULD be a better place if we were all truly compassionate faith filled people, too.

We are a long way from either of those scenerios. Perhaps, we are just an erroneous aternative reality. Maybe, there's a true reality out there that got it right.
Posted by: jjw

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/15/05 02:08 AM

Topic: would an atheist world be a better one?

I think I made a reply earlier but I feel a need to floow up. The answer for me is NO. They have nothing to offer that is better than what we have now, except possibly no donations required. They are currently agressively attacking the most benign and harmless use of the word God in all things to FORCE the rest of the country to live by their desires. That is worse than the other side.
jw
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/25/05 06:51 PM

well, let's say all the money people invest in their religion went into scientific research to cure diseases. Wouldn't that be an improvement?
Let's also say that all the time and brain-power people use up praying was converted into time spent thinking of a good idea, a hobby, their families and friends, working on their talents, just plain fun. Wouldn't that also be an improvement? What if people didn't believe in a paradise that was promised to them when they die? They'd seek out to make their own paradise here and now. In this world, and not live in some cockeyed figment of their imagination. Mind you, this would probably result in a LOT of crime. Oh well, that should toughen the government up at least, unless they get corrupt as well (get corrupt- what am I saying?).
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/25/05 11:53 PM

well, let's say all the money people invest in their religion went into scientific research to cure diseases. Wouldn't that be an improvement?

REP: The money given to our church, (by believers, visitors are urged not to give), goes towards building homes for orphans in Romania and other places, and then pays for staff to work in them. It goes towards paying for African children to receive an education (not religious educations either). Is this of less value than money going to scientific research?

www.globalcare.org - set up by one of our church members.

We are where we are. We cannot ignore the needs of individuals, and concentrate entirely on research that will benefit the human race as a whole. We can't always live in the general, but need to move to the specific as well.

This is the problem with people who are dead against religion - they only see the crap and don't even hear about the many good things that are being done in religion's name, and even when you do you will say it is mercenary - we want to convert the recipient of our charity - this is simply not true - we are commanded to do good, and for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/26/05 12:03 AM

Let's also say that all the time and brain-power people use up praying was converted into time spent thinking of a good idea, a hobby, their families and friends, working on their talents, just plain fun. Wouldn't that also be an improvement?

REP:

American children spend more time watching TV than they do in school, according to Drs. Sege and Dietz in Pediatrics, October 1994.

Sixth and 12th grade California students who were heavy viewers of TV scored lower on reading, written expression and math achievement tests than students who viewed little or no television. (Judith Van Evra, p. 53.)

North Carolina fourth graders watch an average of four hours of TV per day, and 25% of the children watch six hours or more. (1992 Study.)

http://www.limitv.org/stats.htm


- Rob, you may need to aim your cannon somewhere else.

Studies have shown that meditation etc. is good for people. Prayer is not only about communicating with God - it is also about self reflection and is also very relaxing. In this crazy world where no one has time and people are stressed out and often don't even know themselves because they never pause to 'just be' - prayer has the side effect of being an antidote to this.

What else would you like to attack the religious for?

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/26/05 12:11 AM

What if people didn't believe in a paradise that was promised to them when they die? They'd seek out to make their own paradise here and now.

REP: I have covered this before. The reason I don't sit vegetating in front of a TV or even play computer games (which I love) is because the Bible makes it quite clear that I have a responsibility to live this life and do good for others, and I can't do that from in front of a goggle-box.

So on the contrary, people who have no belief in being accountable for anything they do are far more likely to waste their time with the inconsequential. Reality TV or Celebrity Magazine anyone?

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/26/05 01:44 AM

Post 1. Do you honestly believe they give all their money to charity? A small percentage maybe. Religion is just another money making buisness, don't be fooled by advertising.
P.S. Labs (instead of churches) could also give money to charity, what's stopping them?


Post 2. Well, that's the government's fault.

Post 3. Here is another classic example of religion ruining peoples lives. What do you think is gonna happen to you if you do play computer games -you wont get into 'heaven'? This makes me sick! If you enjoy it -flipping do it! Think about it this way, you'll be "doing good" for the providers of the games and consoles.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/26/05 09:54 AM

Post 1. Do you honestly believe they give all their money to charity? A small percentage maybe. Religion is just another money making buisness, don't be fooled by advertising.
P.S. Labs (instead of churches) could also give money to charity, what's stopping them?

REP: You are talking about organized religion. I am talking about people who freely follow the bible's teaching. I hate people who get fat on the proceeds of collection boxes as much as you would.

The statement that 'religion is just another money making business' may have some truth in it, but real Christianity is not a religion - it is made up of individual believers - free to interpret the bible by their own efforts.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/26/05 10:00 AM

Post 2. Well, that's the government's fault.

REP: You missed the point. And it's the government's job to regulate hours spent watching TV?

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/26/05 10:27 AM

Post 3. Here is another classic example of religion ruining peoples lives. What do you think is gonna happen to you if you do play computer games -you wont get into 'heaven'? This makes me sick! If you enjoy it -flipping do it! Think about it this way, you'll be "doing good" for the providers of the games and consoles.

REP: Rob, I know why you dislike religion so much. If I had your level of misconception and misunderstanding, then I probably would too.

- "What do you think is gonna happen to you if you do play computer games -you wont get into 'heaven'? This makes me sick!"

REP: It would make me sick too. However, people are saved by God by the simple act of accepting what was achieved on the cross, and that alone. People don't get there by keeping rules - just as they don't get frozen out for not keeping them. Rob, you need to understand religion better and then, who knows, you may make a better job of attacking it - or you may realise it's not the great evil you presume it is.


I didn't put the computer games thing properly. I occasionally play. I just no longer own a console - it ate too much of my life. I just don't want to lie on my deathbed and think - 'there was a whole world out there for the living and you spent vast amounts of your life watching TV and playing computer games'. This is something everyone should think about, not just the religious.

- "If you enjoy it -flipping do it!"

REP: Post Modernity's Mantra. One step away from 'Do what thy will, shall be the whole of the law'.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/26/05 10:49 PM

"REP: You missed the point. And it's the government's job to regulate hours spent watching TV?" The government sould (but probably will never) motivate young children to do the best they can with themselves. It would help society out a lot.

P.S. This is a personal account, curiosity is one of the main things that leads humans to do extraordinary things, the belief that infinite knowlege will one day be made available to you kills curiosity.

P.P.S. Please stop saying I misunderstand religion, don't forget, I WAS religious for over 10 years.
Posted by: Justine

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/27/05 03:40 PM

The problem is that we have genuine Christians in America, like Blacknad, who are being used and manipulated by maniacal Christians.

There's a beast in America, a political, manipulative, brainwashing, controlling, cruel, greedy and evolving BEAST. And it rears it's head on Christian Radio, news stations (ha), and newspapers.

And our little genuine Christians are like lambs to the slaughter, casting their votes for political leaders who's agendas are in accordance with THE BEAST.

Blacknad I'm sure you didn't vote this way, but a lot of your church members probably thought it was the "christian" thing to do. All because of wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. There's so much more involved with running our country. The scary thing is that it will probably happen again in 2008. The lambs will be fooled by the BEAST, the wolf in sheep's clothing, AGAIN. What can we do????????????
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/27/05 04:50 PM

Justine,

Once again, I find myself defending Christianity - please note I only post in response to others - I am not actually here with an agenda to promote religion.

Christianity is not about power or politics. It is about laying down power to take up love and serving others needs instead. It is about a revolution in individual people's thought lives.

Sure you can focus on the points in history when the "church" has gained power and disgraced itself, by ignoring Christ's imploring to lay down power. This ignores the quiet revolution of millions of broken people down through history, renewed by an encounter with Christ - what we would call the remnant.

I have said before that I could judge science by the Atom Bomb, Vivisection and any other negative headline issue, but this would be to damn the endevour by it's sometime frail application. The same for Christianity. The foolish Christian Right who hate and think they have the right to judge others for being gay etc. when Christ urged them to deal with the log in their own eye before reaching for the speck in others. This is the application of Christianity you see and hear every day.

But this is not the many believers who quietly go about the business of trying to do good in their own community - being ready to have answers when asked about their hope, but not ramming their faith down people's throats. Why would you ever hear about these?

So yes, it is a disgrace when a large part ot the church becomes nothing more than a crowd who are caught up in polarised positions on gays, abortion etc. but the simple measuring stick is this: Are they in accord with Christ? and on these issues I know they are not and it is therefore questionable whether they are genuine (as you say) - when they so easily practice the politics of hate. Only God can know.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Justine

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/27/05 07:07 PM

The "foolish" Christian Right is not as foolish as you think. It's very powerful. This BEAST is an anomaly. And it's stolen your Christ.

What are genuine christians doing to take Christ back? How can you fight the fundamental christian right when they label themselves Christian just like you do?

Where are the organized liberal Christians?

How can liberals, progressives and genuinely compassionate conservatives regardless of our religious/non-religious beliefs take back America? We are endlessly diverse.
And the fundamentalists are able to use the umbrella of Christ to drag along so many Americans who don't actually share any values with them whatsoever. It's just a smokescreen.

What's the gameplan for America? Do we all turn green? Or can the greens and the democrats combine into one party? The demogreenocrats?
Can the genuine republicans seperate themselves from the fundamentalists? I think the BEAST uses the umbrella of "republican" as another smokescreen.

They are just GREEDY PEOPLE with two broad lables slapped on top to cover their true identity and enlist followers.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/27/05 07:59 PM

P.P.S. Please stop saying I misunderstand religion, don't forget, I WAS religious for over 10 years.

Rob, racking up years as a Christian means little - although I think it usually takes about 15 years for someone to really understand the first lesson - (It is about a relationship, not rules). But you can be a Christian for 60 years and still not understand what is at the core of it.

So when I say you don't understand it I mean: you show a lack of understanding about that which is fundamental to the gospels.

It is letting Christ go into your basement with his sledge hammer to fundamentally restructure your life. If you never allowed him in, then of course it would have become a fruitless, meaningless experience. He said 'I stand at the door and knock', there are many people who call themselves Christians but in fact Christ is still standing at their door knocking. I can call myself anything I like, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

You make incorrect statement after incorrect statement about religion and this tells me that your experience of Christianity wasn't authentic.


Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 12/31/05 04:06 PM

I can see you are brain washed beyond repair. Please do not speak to me about how 'great' it is to believe in 'god'. Have you seen Cast Away? I think that's the name of the movie -the one with Tom Hanks on the island. All the Gods of the world are Wilson.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 01/01/06 01:36 PM

Rob - "Have you seen Cast Away? I think that's the name of the movie -the one with Tom Hanks on the island. All the Gods of the world are Wilson. "

REP: More crooked thinking.

IF: In a film, Tom Hanks was alone on an island and created a persona to talk with to try to help retain some sanity and to stave off loneliness.

THEN: God is also invented.

You might want to explain the rules of your neo-logic.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 01/01/06 05:26 PM

IF: in reality, people feared death and the unknown and had a lot of problems and sometimes felt 'all alone' in the world, and hated loneliness, and were intelligent enough to think about how things started and early ignorant versions of them saw that THEY created THINGS and therefore assumed that everything was created, and saw that the belief in a creator made life easier, and had the ability to decieve themselves, and intelligent current versions of them saw that this belief also made people easier to manipulate and control, and knew how to brain-wash people...

THEN: Gods are invented and maintained

ELSE: We have a civilisation based on truth, better or worse, who cares? I hate lies.
Posted by: Justine

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 01/03/06 04:52 PM

The world would be a better place, right now, if in the past, people HAD created God as a companion such as Wilson.
Especially, if people understood God as a companion to all other people as well.

Tom Hanks never worshiped Wilson. But he surely loved him and needed him, too. If he didn't externalize his companion, and he didn't externally talk with God, then Tom Hanks' character would have had to split his personality for companionship resulting in possible irreparble damage to his psyche.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 01/06/06 07:04 PM

You took my example too literally. I was just implying that people invented god to feel better about themselves and the big, mysterious, 'cruel' world.
Posted by: Justine

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 01/06/06 07:30 PM

Yeah, I know. I got your point smile I was just building on it.
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 01/06/06 08:42 PM

Ok -smiley. smile
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 01/27/06 12:19 AM

I just answered my own question. An every-man-for-himself world may not be that good. Thanks evolution.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 01/27/06 01:53 PM

An "every-man-for-himself world" could be good or bad depending on whether the decisions were made with a knowledge of history ... and thus the consequences of the actions.

My vested self-interest is not to have my neighbor kill me in the night. Nor, if I kill him first, is it in my best interest to have many sleepness nights waiting for his family and friends to revenge my actions.

History teaches clearly that these are the consequences for bad acts whether those acts are selfish or generous in their origin.
Posted by: rlb60123

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/15/06 11:17 PM

Dear TheFallibleFiend

Fiend said...
Evolution is not "anti-god." It doesn't say anything at all about god.

My answer...
Finally. Someone who actually read "Voyage of the Beagle" by Charles Darwin. Evolution doesn't erase God in my opinion, it Proves God.
Read "Time to God" a post from me.

I think to much I think.
rlb60123
Posted by: rlb60123

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/15/06 11:56 PM

WOW, let us say that Atheists need to look for God more, and Theists need to burn their temples and start all over again.

If you Hate the Idea of having a Supreme intellect take account of the way you lived your life after your life is over, please raise your hand. Enough said. I think I will stick to trying to live my own life, and leave attaining the Knowledge of God to those who want IT. Shake the Dust from your shoes and move on, Believer, They Ain't Listening.

I think to much I think.
rlb60123
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/28/06 09:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
Many people who love science hate religion and the belief in a ?creator? and an afterlife. My question is: since nature always takes the path of least resistance, and therefore creates the best method to solving any problem, why did humans evolve to believe in God? What is the point in this belief? Is it responsible for the upkeep of natural balance? Or is it just a temporary flaw in human evolution that is being fixed.
It is my personal belief (and hope) that the whole world will one day be atheist and not believe in silly things like souls.

Do you agree that the world will evolve into an atheist one, or is this the way things are meant to be?
It is more probable to find yourself in a world where most people believe in God than in an atheistic world, see here why.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/29/06 12:31 AM

Count Iblis II asked:
"It is more probable to find yourself in a world where most people believe in God than in an atheistic world"

Seems like the ultimate case of painting the target after shooting the arrow.

We live here on planet earth.
The place is as it is.
Our heritage as Homo homo sapiens is what it is.
"Likely" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
You are dealing with a sample size of 1.
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/29/06 01:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Count Iblis II asked:
"It is more probable to find yourself in a world where most people believe in God than in an atheistic world"

Seems like the ultimate case of painting the target after shooting the arrow.

We live here on planet earth.
The place is as it is.
Our heritage as Homo homo sapiens is what it is.
"Likely" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
You are dealing with a sample size of 1.
We don't know what the sample size is. The most favored cosmological models are based on inflation theory which typically predict an infinite universe, listen here why.

So, the sample could very well be infinite. Of course, you only do one observation, but then ultimately everything is just one observation (at any given time all you know about the world is the knowledge stored in your brain at that very moment). What matters is the information contained in the observation.

In this case I'm assuming that I'm sampled from an infinite set of near exact copies. The conclusion that the typical observer should find himself living in a backward civilization then follows naturally.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/29/06 06:35 AM

Earth to Count Iblis ... Earth to Count Iblis.

You tried to change the subject: Oh and you failed!

Here's what I was responding to:
"It is more probable to find yourself in a world where most people believe in God than in an atheistic world"

Please look above and you will see it quoted in my posting.

What in the plum pudding with hard sauce has that got to do with "The most favored cosmological models are based on inflation theory?"

Want to try again?
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/29/06 12:43 PM

"It is more probable to find yourself in a world where most people believe in God than in an atheistic world" follows using some mild assumptions from Anthropic reasoning, which is controversial. But if the universe is indeed infinite and all physically possible states are realized physically then Anthropic reasoning is certainly correct.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/29/06 01:28 PM

Count Iblis II tries again with:
"But if the universe is indeed infinite and all physically possible states are realized physically then Anthropic reasoning is certainly correct."

"...More probable..." implicitly means there is a sampling of worlds.

Your sample size is precisely 1.

You have absolutely no information about any other world anywhere in this or any galaxy.

At best you are engaging in hyperbole.

Your argument is lying on the floor ... over in the corner. Sorry about stepping on it. It is far too late to call 911.
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/29/06 03:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Count Iblis II tries again with:
"But if the universe is indeed infinite and all physically possible states are realized physically then Anthropic reasoning is certainly correct."

"...More probable..." implicitly means there is a sampling of worlds.

Your sample size is precisely 1.

You have absolutely no information about any other world anywhere in this or any galaxy.

At best you are engaging in hyperbole.

Your argument is lying on the floor ... over in the corner. Sorry about stepping on it. It is far too late to call 911.
We do have information about other worlds. We know about the fundamental laws of physics. The probability that there are no other worlds in this galaxy is almost zero.

Similarly, I have no first hand information about the moon landings. I wasn't there, so I can't be 100% certain it really happened. But I do know a lot about the way our media works. I know that what you read in journals, what you see in documentaries is reliable. So, I can conclude that the probability that the moon landings did not happen and that it was all a big conspiracy is almost zero. The sample size you use to find that the moon landings did happen is also 1.

Sammple size is irrelevant. What matters is the probability you obtain for or against some theory.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/29/06 06:48 PM

Countless wrote:
"We do have information about other worlds. We know about the fundamental laws of physics. The probability that there are no other worlds in this galaxy is almost zero."

Do you remember the Gong Show? The TV show where when someone did a deplorable job they rang the gong and then yanked them off stage? You need to listen to the gong.

Your first sentence, above, which I quoted has absolutely zero to say about sentient beings on those planets and whether they do or do not believe in a deity.

Your sample size is still 1.

Countless continued:
"Similarly, I have no first hand information about the moon landings."

You have even less information about God, Moses, Jesus Christ, George Washington, and Paris Hilton. None of whom you have personally met. Your lack of personal knowledge about diamond cutting doesn't refute the fact that diamonds are cut.

Countless plunged into the depths of despair with:
"Sammple size is irrelevant."

Gong!

And then completed his leap into obscurity with:
"What matters is the probability you obtain for or against some theory."

Gong Gong Gong. Probability without concern about sample size? Probability with a sample size of 1?
Are the following terms new to you?

AVERAGE
COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBTION
POPULATION COVARIANCE
POPULATION VARIANCE
SAMPLE COVARIANCE
SAMPLE VARIANCE
STANDARD DEVIATION
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/29/06 07:08 PM

I have a Ph.D. in physics and I was familiar with most of these terms when I was still in primary school (I was about 5 years ahead with my maths).

I'm not doing statistics with just one degree of freedom. Sample size is not relevant here. And you can twist the concept of sample size such that you can say that all your knowledge about the world is just one data point. Just digitize it and represent it as a point in a multi dimensional vector space. What matters is the information contained in the data. Google for Shannon entropy or Shannon information to learn more.


What matters is the probability. In this case it is the probability of finding yourself in a ''backward'' civilization vs, the probability of finding yourself in a rational civilization. These probabilities could, in principle, be calculated from first principles using only the laws of physics, without any further observations.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/30/06 07:30 PM

Count Iblis wrote:
"I have a Ph.D. in physics"
and
"Sample size is not relevant here."

Ok I am going to hold back my gut instinct to just break out in hysterical laughter and ask you to provide a reference that supports the the following two statements you made which were:

"It is more probable to find yourself in a world where most people believe in God than in an atheistic world"

juxtaposed with your statement:

"Sample size is not relevant here."

Yes. I want you to address your claim that sample size is not relevant to a discussion of probability.

And then I will either nominate you for a Nobel Prize or laugh hysterically until I turn purple and my colleagues call the paramedics.
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/30/06 09:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Count Iblis wrote:
"I have a Ph.D. in physics"
and
"Sample size is not relevant here."

Ok I am going to hold back my gut instinct to just break out in hysterical laughter and ask you to provide a reference that supports the the following two statements you made which were:

"It is more probable to find yourself in a world where most people believe in God than in an atheistic world"

juxtaposed with your statement:

"Sample size is not relevant here."

Yes. I want you to address your claim that sample size is not relevant to a discussion of probability.

And then I will either nominate you for a Nobel Prize or laugh hysterically until I turn purple and my colleagues call the paramedics.
I use probability in a Bayesian sense, not a frequentist one. You won't win a Nobel prize for inventing Bayesian probability theory any more than for proving that 1 + 1 = 2. It's well established part of probability theory that you seem to be unaware of.


I argued for the statement "It is more probable to find yourself in a world where most people believe in God than in an atheistic world" on theoretical grounds. Sample size isn't relevant here. You can criticise the validity of the (implicit) assumptions made but that is another matter.

Compare the above statement with this one:


"It is more probable to find yourself in a galaxy in which there are many other planets than in a galaxy where there are just 20"

Suppose that this statement was made by an anstrophysicist 20 years ago on the basis of simulatons of planet formations. Thoise simulatons would be based on the known laws of physics. If accurate enough there wouldn't be much grounds to dispute the results.

So, based on these simulatations you would be able to estimate the number of planets in our galaxy, without ever having observed a single extra solar planet. Then you could calculate the probability that our galaxy contains no other planets besides the ones in our solar system. That would, of course, yield a very small probability.

What is the interpretation of this probability? It means that it is very unlikely that no extrasolar planets would be detected in the future. Of course you can only verify this once. There are either extrasolar planets or there aren't (we now know there are). But that's not a valid objection, because in principle you could imagine an ensemble of civilizations in different galaxies testing the same hypothesis.

If you insist on a frequentist definition of the probability then you have to invoke this ensemble. This is exactly how most physics textbooks define probabilities when you can measure the system only once. You invoke an ensemble of identically prepaired systems. But in the Bayesuian sense the probability is always defined and can be related to the knowledge you have about the system, e.g. via the Shannon entropy.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/31/06 12:29 AM

To those who are not familiar with the term "Bayesian Probability" basically it is the scientific equivalent to "One flew over the cukoo's nest."

Here's the definition from Wikipedia for your delight.

"Bayesianism is the tenet that the mathematical theory of probability is applicable to the degree to which a person believes a proposition."
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/31/06 01:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
To those who are not familiar with the term "Bayesian Probability" basically it is the scientific equivalent to "One flew over the cukoo's nest."

Here's the definition from Wikipedia for your delight.

"Bayesianism is the tenet that the mathematical theory of probability is applicable to the degree to which a person believes a proposition."

So if a total moron believes something ... in a Bayesian sense it is 100% probable. Since I believe the Count is full of helium ... therefore he is.
Not if you base it on a physical theory. You can indeed apply Bayesian reasoning to arbitrary beliefs. But if you apply it to update a priori probabilities in a well defined physical setting, there is nothing wrong with that. An example would be the ''number of planets in the galaxy'' I posted abpout earlier.

Of course, you had no arguments about that and had to resport to a childish Straw Man attack about how you could apply Bayesian reasoning in a nonsensical setting. And even there you make mistakes.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/31/06 05:51 AM

Count Iblis wrote:
"You can indeed apply Bayesian reasoning to arbitrary beliefs."

Tell you what ... I'll apply it to the Invisible Purple Rhinoceros."

Do you believe?
Yes brother I believe.
But do you really believe?
Yes brother I really believe?
But do you really really in your heart of hearts believe?
Hallelujah! Yes brother I feel it down to my toes.

ROFL.

Thanks for the comic relief.
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/31/06 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Count Iblis wrote:
"You can indeed apply Bayesian reasoning to arbitrary beliefs."

Tell you what ... I'll apply it to the Invisible Purple Rhinoceros."

Do you believe?
Yes brother I believe.
But do you really believe?
Yes brother I really believe?
But do you really really in your heart of hearts believe?
Hallelujah! Yes brother I feel it down to my toes.

ROFL.

Thanks for the comic relief.
You have launched a successful Straw Man attack on the Invisible Purple Rhinoceros!
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/31/06 04:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
And you were trampled. C'est dommage.
Nonsense. Go to wikipedia and edit the page on Bayesian probability explaining why it is nonsense. Mention the pink elephant example etc. Explain your edits on the talk page.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/31/06 06:02 PM

Don't play childrens games trying to change the subject. Here's what you've written.

1.
"It is more probable to find yourself in a world where most people believe in God than in an atheistic world"

Does the probability of finding yourself on planet inhabited by deists change if you truly believe that is the case?

2.
"The probability that there are no other worlds in this galaxy is almost zero."

Is the issue of other planets existing Bayesian? Do planets spring into existance if you believe in them hard enough?

You've been caught running around naked in the headlights of a police cruiser. You can believe all you wish that you are wearing clothes. But they are still going to handcuff you, throw you in the back of the patrol car, and laugh about you later as much as I am now.

What you've done with Bayesian probability is roughly the equivalent of using a screw driver to pound in a nail.

But what makes this hillariously funny is that you either (1) don't get it or (2) which is even worse haven't the integrity acknowledge your error.

ROFL!
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/31/06 06:45 PM

You are the one who is constantly changing the subject. In 1. I assume that it was possible for the observer to have found himself in an atheistic world. Now, you may disagree with that assumption, but it within certain theories, such as eternal inflation, all possible quantum states of the observbable part of the universe are realized. In that setting all possible histories are real, but some are more probable than others.

Of course, you can then say that there exists a planet on which pink elephants live that can climb trees. But that's besides the issue here.

If you simply refuse to accept the premise, that is fine, if you just say so. But what you do is you substitute your own twisted idea of Bayesian probability to make the whole thing sound ridiculous.


That you don't understand it doesn't mean it is flawed. That you can apply it in a flawed way doesn't mean that the method is fundamentally flawed.

Hint: the word ''belief'' is used in a general way. Usually it means prior knowledge. In your ridiculous examples the belief does not correpond to a real knowledge about the system at all, but rather to a nonsensical delusion.

Let me know when you have rewritten the wiki articles on Bayesian probability. I will stop responding to your childish propaganda here.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 03/31/06 07:04 PM

Count Iblis wrote:
"I assume that it was possible for the observer to have found himself in an atheistic world."

Disagree? There is not a single known example of an atheistic planet populated with sentient being anywhere in the universe. You have an invisible purple rhinoceros by another name.

I've no need to rewrite the wiki article. The fact that you don't understand when to use a hammer does not require redefinition of the screw driver.

ROFL!
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/01/06 01:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Count Iblis wrote:
"I assume that it was possible for the observer to have found himself in an atheistic world."

Disagree? There is not a single known example of an atheistic planet populated with sentient being anywhere in the universe. You have an invisible purple rhinoceros by another name.

I've no need to rewrite the wiki article. The fact that you don't understand when to use a hammer does not require redefinition of the screw driver.

ROFL!
There isn't a single example of a detection of a Higgs particle either. That doesn't mean that it is as likely to be detected as a purple rhino.

There is a lot of evidence for the existence of the Higgs, even though it hasn't been detected. Similarly, there is some evidence for an infinite universe, because of the success of inflation theory. The recent WMAP results are consistent with inflation. And if you had taken the time to listen to Alan Guth's talk (I posted the link a few postings back) you would have understood that Inflation generically implies an infinite universe.

And an infinite universe implies an infinite number of copies of any observer distributed over all possible situations. But not all these situations are as likely, of course.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/01/06 03:25 AM

Count Iblis wrote:
"There isn't a single example of a detection of a Higgs particle either. That doesn't mean that it is as likely to be detected as a purple rhino."

Another attempt to change the subject that will not go unchallenged. Are you now claiming the existence of the Higgs Boson is a matter of Bayesian probability? That the Higgs will exist if I truly beieve in my heart and sould that it does? ROFL!

Count Iblis wrote:
"There is a lot of evidence for the existence of the Higgs, even though it hasn't been detected."

Which again has absolutely nothing to do with Bayesian probability. ROFL!

Count Iblis wrote:
"And an infinite universe implies an infinite number of copies of any observer distributed over all possible situations."

An infinite universe implies nothing other than the fact that there is no boundary. And absolutely nothing Bayesian. ROFL!
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/01/06 12:33 PM

Bayesian probability theory has nothing to do with some parapsychological nonsense like if you believe something then it is true.

If you disagree, then why not edit the wikipedia article on this subject?

You are the one who is changing the subject by claiming that Bayesian probability theory is what you say it is.

''An infinite universe implies nothing other than the fact that there is no boundary.''


False, i.e. the ''nothing other than'' in your sentence.

In the general case, an infinite universe implies an infinite number of observers. This is similar to saying that if you know that there are a trillion stars in a galaxy then that's all you know. But you know more than that, because you know about how the universe works. So, you also know that there will be a lot of interstellar dust there, even though you haven't seen it yet there.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/01/06 07:45 PM

I never said Bayesian probability had to do with parapsychological nonsense. I said it had absolutely nothing to do with whether the majority of planets inhabited by sentient beings believe in god. You seem to have a remarkably short attention span.

Count Iblis wrote:
"In the general case, an infinite universe implies an infinite number of observers."

Back up this single sentence. Point to a single book on physics or math that supports this single sentence.

Next, no doubt, you will tell me that if the universe is infinite then there MUST somewhere be an invisible purple rhinoceros too.

ROFL!
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/01/06 09:04 PM

Quote:
Count Iblis wrote:
"In the general case, an infinite universe implies an infinite number of observers."

Back up this single sentence. Point to a single book on physics or math that supports this single sentence.
Ok, but pay attention to ''In the general case''. You can always consider an unnatural situation where the infinite universe isn't homogeneous and only contains a finite number of stars. Such a situation is unnatural from the point of view of basic physics and astronomy, not simply because it doesn't predict an infinite number of observers.

I'll give you some peer reviewed publications:

Joshua Knobe, Ken D. Olum, Alexander Vilenkin,
''Philosophical Implications of Inflationary Cosmology'', to appear in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, preprint


Ken D. Olum,''Conflict between anthropic reasoning and observation'', Analysis 64, 1 (2004) preprint


This book explains inflation:

Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology
Posted by: RM

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/01/06 10:20 PM

"Next, no doubt, you will tell me that if the universe is infinite then there MUST somewhere be an invisible purple rhinoceros too."

Maybe...
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/02/06 12:34 AM

Count Iblis ... thank you for making an object lesson to lurkers on how easy it is for people to sound knowledgeable while pontificating poppycock.

You wrote:
"a finite number of stars"

A finite number of stars ... an infinite number of stars ... it makes no difference. There is no basis upon which to postulate sentient observers believing in god.

Thank you for the references. Have you read them? Do they make a single reference to Bayesian probability? No!

Do you read stuff or just throw it at the wall and hope it will stick?

Here's what your reference states:
"Recent developments in cosmology indicate that every history having a nonzero probability is realized in the infinitely many distict regions of spacetime."

So a planet inhabited by beings that believe in god has a non-zero probability of existing. You are standing on it. That says (1) nothing about more than one existing and (2) has absolutely nothing whatsovever to do with Bayesian Probability.
Posted by: jjw

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/02/06 01:33 AM

The question was: Would an atheist world be a better one?

I read about this entire tirade that gets involved with definitions of sorts.

The issue of whether probability requires there are more that believe in god than not is easily answered by what we see. There is no doubt whatever that as of now the world population overwhelmingly favors a belief in some kind of god so, probability or none, facts carry the day.

The real issue relates to the original question and I have an observation of substance.

The proof is found by reading all the posts of the atheists, and comparing those posts to those that offer something in favor of religion. There is no comparison. I am sorry to report that the atheists lack any demonstration of reasonable tolerance; they tend to be argumentative and combative. They are usually repetitive and do not show an effort to discuss the issue objectively.

This is my ?objective? observation. I think that an atheist world would be absolutely godless.
jjw
Posted by: Count Iblis II

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/02/06 01:25 PM

Quote:


Here's what your reference states:
"Recent developments in cosmology indicate that every history having a nonzero probability is realized in the infinitely many distict regions of spacetime."

So a planet inhabited by beings that believe in god has a non-zero probability of existing. You are standing on it. That says (1) nothing about more than one existing and (2) has absolutely nothing whatsovever to do with Bayesian Probability.
Hahahahahaaahahahahaaaaa! What does ''probability'' here mean? If it isn't in the Bayesian sense (and I mean Bayesian in its official meaning, not the twisted parapsychological nonsensical definition by DA Morgan), then it is the frequentists definition. But then what does the quoted paragraph say? It is then a tautology!


Quote:
That says (1) nothing about more than one existing
Yes it does say that, because it is claimed that all histories that are not forbidden by the laws of physics are realized. An atheistic world were humans live does not violate any of the laws of physics. If you believe it does, then point out what laws of physics would have to be violated.


Quote:
and (2) has absolutely nothing whatsovever to do with Bayesian Probability.
Like I said, of course it has.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 04/03/06 12:49 AM

jjw04 wrote:
"The question was: Would an atheist world be a better one?"

And the answer simply is that we don't know because we do not know of any other inhabited planet other than our own.

jjw continued:
"This is my ?objective? observation. I think that an atheist world would be absolutely godless."

I agree.
Posted by: Peter Bmn

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/07/06 01:11 PM

I don't see that there is any basic difference between Atheist and Theist societies, as they are all religious. What's more important is the style of belief or disbelief (and the values which go with the belief system).

Just by reading your contributions it is easy to see that some people are more Fundamentalist in style than others, and that being an Atheist does not protect you from being a hard core Fundamentalist or stop you from trying to convert others to your beliefs.

Obviously living society which matches your beliefs would be much more comfortable, but if you do live in a society with contrary beliefs then it would be much easier if it was low on fundamentalism.
Despite this, as TheFallibleFiend says, there are other things which are much more important than belief or disbelief in a deity. If you were an Atheist in an Atheist society, a conflict in values between you and your society could be much more significant than being an Atheist in a Theist society if your values generally matched those of your society. .e.g Communists living in Nazi Germany (I am not sure whether the Nazism was officially Atheist, but they come across that way, especially with their semi deification of the Arian race).
Posted by: dehammer

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/07/06 05:13 PM

"godless", "god fearing" whats the difference. if it were not god, some other form of control would be created.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/08/06 04:17 PM

Peter wrote:
"Just by reading your contributions it is easy to see that some people are more Fundamentalist in style than others, and that being an Atheist does not protect you from being a hard core Fundamentalist or stop you from trying to convert others to your beliefs."

Au contraire. I don't give a rip what you or anyone else believes. What I do care about is brain washing children and committing immoral and unethical acts while hypocritically justifying them by claiming god supports the act.

In the privacy of your own house you can be as smart or as stupid as you wish. Smoke tobacco or crack. Drink scotch or strychnine. Not my problem.
Just don't do unto others.

In short I'd be happy to shut up about what's wrong with Christian faith-based nonsense if Christians would do us an equal courtesy and stop trying to market the product.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/08/06 09:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Peter wrote:Au contraire. I don't give a rip what you or anyone else believes. What I do care about is brain washing children and committing immoral and unethical acts while hypocritically justifying them by claiming god supports the act.
what measure do you determine that something is immoral. simple religion of one type or another. morals are the standards that society teaches us to measure everything by. we use our own sense of ethics to decide to follow those codes or not. in some socieites things you've mentioned were considered normal moral behavior. in those, your arguements would be considered immoral. you see, youre as big a victum of 'brainwashing' as everyone else. some of the biggest monsters of our times had the moral code to understand that socieity did not agree with it. but their sense of ethics make them feel it was unimportant enough to follow that code.

Quote:
In the privacy of your own house you can be as smart or as stupid as you wish. Smoke tobacco or crack. Drink scotch or strychnine. Not my problem.
Just don't do unto others.
so you believe if an aithies does it in the confort of his home and does not get all hypocritically about it, its ok?

Quote:
In short I'd be happy to shut up about what's wrong with Christian faith-based nonsense if Christians would do us an equal courtesy and stop trying to market the product.
for the most part i can agree with that. their biggest problem is that they are not happy, unless everyone else is as miserable as they are.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/08/06 11:24 PM

dehammer asks:
"what measure do you determine that something is immoral."

Things are damaged. People, buildings, forests.

dehammer wrote:
"so you believe if an aithies does it in the confort of his home and does not get all hypocritically about it, its ok?"

Does what? Read my first sentence above.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/09/06 02:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Things are damaged. People, buildings, forests.
so ppl burning forest so they could plant crops were immoral. no. at that time society said it was a good thing.

so destroy old building to make room for new ones is immoral. no. that is not. society decides what is immoral.

Quote:
Does what? Read my first sentence above.
i did. According to your statement, what is wrong is that they church is doing it in the name of religion. the reality is that its not OK for anyone to do things like that. whether its in a person home by a beloved father, or in a church by a priest, or in the forest by a total stranger, its all the same thing. as long as society decides it immoral, it has to apply to all in that society. example: in the christian church, certain things are not allowed. in other religions its part of the ceremony and part of their home and life. if your christian, and you do them, then your acting immoral.

the problem with many Christians is that they cant see what is immoral for them, does not apply to other religions. most of them believe, for example, that America is a christian nation. it has never been a christian nation. most of the founding fathers were not christian. a large percentage of them were deitist. (not sure of that spelling). some were out and out pagan. but the christian revisionist would have you believe that everyone that has ever been part of American history was either christian or an enemy. unfortunately by their standards, its moral to rewrite history. ethical is another question.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/09/06 03:59 AM

dehammer asks:
"so ppl burning forest so they could plant crops were immoral."

Is this a rhetorical question based on forest clearing 100 years ago or is it contemporary and based on the current burning of the Amazon and Indonesia.

If it wasn't for religious hypocrites hell-bent on global overpopulation there would be plenty of food.

Just once I'd like to see a rational explanation of why this planet needs a larger human population than it had 50 years ago. Got one?
Posted by: dehammer

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/09/06 05:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Is this a rhetorical question based on forest clearing 100 years ago or is it contemporary and based on the current burning of the Amazon and Indonesia.
no, it was a rhetorical question based on the fact that in mans early farming history, he burned down many forest to make room for food for his expanding family.


Quote:
If it wasn't for religious hypocrites hell-bent on global overpopulation there would be plenty of food.

Just once I'd like to see a rational explanation of why this planet needs a larger human population than it had 50 years ago. Got one?
where did you get the idea that man "planned" the increase in population. if it had been planned, its unlikely that it would have reached this size.

the closest that anyone came to planning it, was the church declaring that it was immoral to use contraceptives of any type. to my way of seeing things that was the most hypocritical thing a hypocritial religion has ever done.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/10/06 07:06 AM

I don't respond to rhetorical questions.

dehammer asks:
"where did you get the idea that man "planned" the increase in population"

Last time I checked most countries financially subsidize it. That, by definition, is planning.

I'll agree many religious rules around sex and reproduction are grossly hypocrical. But their greatest hypocrosy? Not when compared to raping women during a "holy" war. There is no limit to religious hypocrisy.
Posted by: dehammer

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/11/06 02:01 AM

no, thats more lack of planning than planning. ive yet to see any program anywhere that pays ppl to have children and says, 'this is for the purpose of having more children.' i have seen programs set up for other reasons that have had that effect. that is because of lack of planning, not because of planning.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/16/06 11:40 AM

It hardly matters what kind of world you believe in....
What matters is are you happy doing what you are doing?
And from logic based on sociology it is clear that that Ablsolute Aethist world is not likely to happen.
Therefore from sociology point of view it becomes important to learn to tolerate opposite point of view till we dont really understand that somehow this whole Universe loves each one of us...
Without any preconditions.. and if there is any pain then it is due to our thought process which somehow refuses to recognise and realize this simple fact that we are all loved by the allmighty...unconditionally.
Such a faith demands complete surrender with soul..(if you believe in one) or with mind (if you believe in one) or with heart(if you have one)
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: would an atheist world be a better one? - 06/20/06 03:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
It hardly matters what kind of world you believe in....
What matters is are you happy doing what you are doing?
And from logic based on sociology it is clear that that Ablsolute Aethist world is not likely to happen.
Therefore from sociology point of view it becomes important to learn to tolerate opposite point of view till we dont really understand that somehow this whole Universe loves each one of us...
Without any preconditions.. and if there is any
pain then it is due to our thought process which somehow refuses to recognise and realize this simple fact that we are all loved by the allmighty...unconditionally.
Such a faith demands complete surrender with soul..(if you believe in one) or with mind (if you believe in one) or with heart(if you have one)
As best I can tell, this thread is not about faith, or souls, or minds or hearts. The heart is an organ which pumps blood, nothing more, in scientific terms.

Please stick to Science and Science related topics. Consider yourself warned.

Amaranth
Moderator