I've moved on from being an Atheistic Evangelist to being an Atheistic Enforcer.

Preaching is no good unless it would have the effect that playing Slim Whitman did on the martians in "Mars Attacks".

What's my point? I have none beyond the self evident nature of this thread.

I put this here because it has no real point in a religious forum. It invites no actual discussion. I just am fed up to HERE with religioignoramuses.

Here's my plan: (turn up your speaker volume!)

Attack! (http://www.wavcentral.com/sounds/movies/mars_attacks/manow.mp3)

man, sometimes I feel like crashing religious services and argue about the existence of god, but Atheistic Enforcing is not for me I guess.

does anyone live in Michigan? I would crash a religious service if I had the support of a fellow non-believe.

You wanna enforce with this?
http://www.imagestation.com/mypictures/

I dare you

what? you want me to enforce with imagestation? I don't get it?

It takes while. What is an evangelist? Sounds like a biblical reference to an evil angel that doesnt believe in a All Mighty Ultimate Numinous.

Super,

The best way to defeat religion is to offer a better alternative. Atheism is essentially a negative position and will never be seen as attractive. The most attractive endeavor I see is one of humanism and humanist principles - these are very positive and anti-religious.

Arpus,

Should I smite the religious with a... website?

Cris,

What's in a name? Humanism is listed right alongside atheism in many religious hatesites. Call it lime jello if you want. Soon, you'll be a pitiful damned-to-hell jelloite.

are you mentally challenged ArpusDogma? couse I have heard parrots that have made more sense.

Super,

To theists, atheists and humanists might appear the same - both are atheist. But the practical outlook for us is significantly different.

Please elaborate.

I do not share Cris’s humanist views, if you are truly serious about being an atheist you should not try to defeat religion at all, you should not even challenge it.

To me, atheism is, believing in not believing. Basically I believe that your entire disbelief collapses when you present yourself as an atheist. To me a true atheist would be someone who has realized that even having “invented” the term Atheism is a failure. I consider Atheism to be just another religion, believing in not believing is just as much a religion to me as believing.

I have a fairly unique view on Life, as a result of my AI research. It has rendered me to a state where I even consider posting messages useless because it will not really matter, I believe so greatly in a deterministic universe and due to my AI research I have a greater understanding (or so I hope) of how every living organism works that I can honestly admit that I am egoistic (so is every living organism), and I therefore only focus at my goals and I merely act as I see fit to assist those goals. This post is totally meaningless to me, and you will probably consider it to be crap as well, but honestly it does not really matter.

About the egoistic comment, I am sure you will ask questions about it. I will give you a little hint about what I am saying.
You have got 100 dollars in your palm, what do you do?

Some would buy something for themselves (this would be considered egoistic by some)

Some would buy a gift for their wife (not egoistic? The only reason you would do this is because you believe that the “gain” that you get in the end is more worth it than buying something for yourself. This could perhaps result in a kinder wife if you have been married for a long time :), or if you are recently married, well I believe that you can figure out what the “gain” would be then by yourself.)

Some might donate their 100 dollars (altruism? No, you merely donate money if either:
a) Someone knows about it, you either tell them (bragging) or they see it for themselves.
b) It makes you feel better; you get an inner sensation when donating money.
This option which I consider to be the most stupid of the three is also egoistic, you never give away anything unless you consider it to be worth more to you in that way. Due to upbringing the parameters will vary and every human makes different choices.)


Why am i even posting this? Egoistic as well, i want you to admire me. Of course i could be wrong and you could consider me to be an utter fool. time will tell.

Dilbert,

You could simply have said - there is no true altruism. Which I judge to be correct. All actions have some evolutionary punishment/reward basis.

Atheism is a specific response to thesim. It has only one postulate: There is no need to invoke a god to explain nature. That's it. It means, very simply "not a theist".

A belief is a conclusion based on partial, inconclusive evidence which is why it is not called a certainty or a fact. Statements that do not demand proof of any kind are not beliefs. Remember - the burden of proof is on those making the claim.

Stating that there is no need to invoke a god is not a belief. It's a positional statement only. In the absence of theism, there would be no reason to even mention god, so how could you call not even having the concept a belief?

For example, there is no need to invoke epicycles to explain planetary motion. I don't believe that there are no epicycles, I simply would not even think of them given my current state of knowledge. Just as I don't even consider a god one way or the other in my everyday life.

Do I believe in god? No. Do I believe god does not exist? No. I don't consider god in any fashion. It's a null concept.

Religion now, that's a different story. I do believe firmly that it is a bad thing, and I know for a fact that history is full of atrocities committed in gods name. I would just like to experience a world in which religion was absent and reason prevailed. We as a species have never had a chance to do that experimnent for any length of time.

Sl, but there is altruism in Nature. Some birds are know to chirp warnings of hungry hunting hawks at the risk of exposing themselves to the danger. Intuitively one would think that such activity would place these individual birds at the lower end of the "survival of the fittest" slot. But here they are still warning and surviving. Perhaps there is some benefit to an extended longevity for the acts of good gifts, brave deeds offering life support to other life forms?

You know the reason Mother Nature inserted time in her creation was so everything didn't happen all at once? You were aware of this weren't you SL?

Geistkiesel :cool:

Belief in one or more gods seems to be hard-wired into us. It's archetypal, something that occurs in all cultures and all eras. Obviously we're all different and in some of us this trait is weak or perhaps nonexistent. But the vast majority of humans appear to have it. We have to accept that and learn to make peace with it.

Advanced civilizations do occasionally provide something that reduces the need for theism. But it never lasts. China's dao/Confucian thing, it's not about gods. But when the Buddhist missionaries spread out from India, China quickly became a largely Buddhist culture. Now some branches of Buddhism don't really get into supernatural beings, I'm not sure where the Chinese variant falls.

It sure looked like the USA was headed in that direction about forty years ago. Church membership and attendance was falling, anti-religious speech was common. The Christian churches that did well were the ones that soft-pedaled the supernatural and concentrated on morality.

Yet that era came to an abrupt end about fifteen years later when the "born again" craze swept the nation. People who had "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll" tattooed on the inside of their brains suddenly felt compelled to find Jesus.

Today an overwhelimg majority of Americans say they're Christians and they may even believe they are. But if you press them, it's barely skin deep. In polls, something like 80 percent of Americans believe in heaven, but only about 25 percent believe in hell.

Religion is irrational and cognitive dissonance thrives within its ranks. People who believe in God don't necessarily understand what it is they believe in. I'm not sure this is something to worry about.

geist,

If you read my statement correctly:

You could simply have said - there is no true altruism. Which I judge to be correct

I never said there was NO altruism. I am well aware of alturism and how it manifests itself in various species. However, I subscribe to the view that all acts of altruism must benefit the genetic future of the altruist. Your bird chirping warning calls may put itself in danger, but how many relatives and direct offspring are helped by this? Potentially very many. Remember, the bird is just the genes way of making sure that more of the same genes get to the next generation.

Fraggle:

Religion is irrational and cognitive dissonance thrives within its ranks. People who believe in God don't necessarily understand what it is they believe in. I'm not sure this is something to worry about.

I completely agree. The individual can believe whatever they want. But the particular cognitive virus called RELIGION tends to cause large groups to band together and ultimately try to force their virus onto others via evangelism, political action, etc.

If there is anything to the MEMES then religion has got to be a classical example. It is highly communicable, it alters the behavior of the host such that large numbers of them agglomerate, and it attempts to reproduce itself at all costs. By assimilation at best, and by elimination of those with resistance at worst.