What environment were you raised in? Were your parents theists, if yes of what denomination if any? Did you accept God blindly as a child, if yes when did you begin to question His existance.
I'll start this off by saying that for the first few years of my life my parents never went to church and only spoke now and then of God. Then they started dragging me and my siblings to church, Roman Catholic to be exact, and starting trying to make us pray before dinner/meals/etc. I accepted at first with a child's ignorance but began to question when I started learning more about science in school. My father later explained that he's a general theist and only chose to make us attend a Roman Catholic church because of it's strong hierarchy, though my mother was always Roman Catholic and I think he was raised one as well. I've caught him in many contradictions where he'll say we should base our life on the bible but then says he only believes in a global "spirit" that is "God" and that created everything but isn't neccesarily the God of Judeo-Christian belief. IDK, I think he's just a little f*cked up. I'm now rather firm in my theories of the universe though I'm always open to learning new concepts and theories on existance if they have support from facts and whatnot. Your turns.:)

I was not raised. If my mother had any religious convictions, she did not share them with me. She believed in God, but I doubt she cared enough to explain these things to me.

I played with religions. A bit of Egyptian paganism to amuse myself, then Deism when I was 14. Never believed in an afterlife, which has come in very handy. Agnosticism most of the time, then logical athiesm.

Now I don't really care. God is dead, and no-one cares, although religion interests me very much. Most things interest me, though.

Basically, I have been an athiest always.

My parents would not call themselves atheists or anything else related to religion. They never gave a damn about it either way. I was not taught any particular religion or philosophy. My parents instead gave me a library card when I was about four years old.

I played around with paganism as well. Wicca and spellcraft. For a long time I wanted to believe in something greater than myself. Some power that would give my suffering reason. But in the end I couldn't logically support those ideas. I still like to study religions, now more from a sociological perspective. The occult religions interest me the most, but maybe that's because I'm a scorpio.(j/k I don't believe in that junk either;) ) I'm a scholar of the occult, rather than a student of it. I think my interest in paganism grew out of my earlier interest in mythology and legend. Oh well, don't want to hijack my own thread, more replies?:D

Well, I still play around with paganism and suchlike. My joke religion, Cthulhu cultism, is a sign here.

Mayhaps we're both athiests with interests in the occult because we're scorpios. ;)

So your a scorpio too?:cool: You know if I believed in astrology that could explain alot...

My mother is a Buhddist. My father used to be a Christian, but he got converted to Buhddist by my mom.

Strangely I grew up going to a Baptist church every sunday, and bible study group every Wednesday. My parents didn't care. Buhddism considers other religions as "legit". Unlike Islam or Christianity, it doesn't say it's way is the right way or the only way.

I went to churches and bible study groups mainly to socialize. When I was 11th grade, I no longer felt like I fit in the group. Studying a fantasy(bible) that is made up by some dude was becoming a ridiculous concept for me. A lot people in that bible study group eventually declare themselves atheists and left the group shortly after I left.

Originally posted by Xev
I was not raised. If my mother had any religious convictions, she did not share them with me. She believed in God, but I doubt she cared enough to explain these things to me.

I played with religions. A bit of Egyptian paganism to amuse myself, then Deism when I was 14. Never believed in an afterlife, which has come in very handy. Agnosticism most of the time, then logical athiesm.

Now I don't really care. God is dead, and no-one cares, although religion interests me very much. Most things interest me, though.

Basically, I have been an athiest always.

I was pretty much the same also, my parents believed in god, but didn't go to church and I tried different religions and found them to be irrelivent. I don't think I ever believed in god. The religion I spent the most time on was Wicca (post-modern peganism) and have many books on the subject, but oh well.

My parents had no real religious beliefs. They also came from hard times and poor families and had next to little education but they recognized that the state education I received was far above anything they had ever experienced. They provided me a home and a stable, albeit poor environment, apart from that I was on my own; they were never able to teach me anything of an intellectual or academic nature, and religion was simple never discussed.

My parents accepted the state religion because it was a tradition and they did not know any better. This meant religion was fine for weddings and funerals but was otherwise irrelevant to normal daily life.

Being British I was expected to take part in daily Xtian worship and receive regular religious instruction throughout my entire school life. It was a chore and I never gave it much thought.

At the age of 17 I did choose to think more about Xtian teachings and became deeply involved to the point that one can say I had become a devout Xtian. I was heavily involved in Church activities, including weekend conferences, bible study sessions, and local youth groups.

At around 20, having found that Xtianity had answered none of my deeper probing questions, I simply rejected the entire religion as being very shallow.

There was enormous emotion involved in Xtianity but all meaningful searching questions were evaded, much like Tony1 and Ekimlaw have demonstrated here recently, e.g. a true Xtian can only understand through spiritual revelation. Having totally immersed myself in Xtianity and was still faced with evasion and clearly no spiritual revelations appeared then really my only meaningful choice was to reject the entire religion as a fraud.

That was 30 years ago and I have retained an interest in Xtianity ever since in the hope that perhaps there is something to it. But I quickly lost patience with the same stale rhetoric of the need for faith and believing first, and that God will reveal himself in his own time, i.e. zero answers, a dream world of self-delusion.

Today, having spent more time looking at the origins of religions especially Xtianity, I have no doubt that all religions I have examined, and probably all religions, are based on human imaginative concepts and fictional mythologies.

There appears no factual basis to the claims for any gods or any supernatural phenomena that might lead to anything one might call an afterlife. These seem to be no more than dreams created by people who lived in far less enlightened times, and believed today by largely ignorant masses.

For the most part religions are irrelevant, unfortunately there are those in power in some countries who foster these outdated ideas and whose actions do present a danger to human progress and potentially world destruction. The actions of fundamentalist Moslems who when able to activate nuclear and biological weapons clearly present immense danger, and aggressive extremists like George Bush who are ready to invade other countries on suspicions only, plus the suppression of scientific research once again, e.g. stem cell research, all form the danger of following religious doctrines.

From my perspective life is invaluable, it is the most precious thing there can be, it is all I have. To the religionist, life is but temporary and true rewards come after life. It is this fatalist attitude IMHO that permit wars to continue and life to be treated without the respect it deserves.

As for atheism: I really don’t like the label since those who do not properly understand what it means largely hold inaccurate perceptions. In live debates I no longer accept the label of atheism unless the participants are appropriately responsible people.

I’d like to be able to simply dismiss religion and get on with more relevant matters but the subject is too often pushed in my face and I have to deal with it, much to my regret. Especially here in the USA.

Religion does seem to have spread much like a parasitic virus or cancer. The cure that has been discussed here many times is knowledge and superior education, and for now that simply means being patient. The world is moving in that direction, albeit extremely slowly.

Secularism is now quite widespread and very few governments allow themselves to be ruled by religion, and those that do, also seem to have an undercurrent of practically that resembles secularism, even Iran has demonstrated such attitudes recently.

Sorry, I rambled.

Cris

well, my parents believe in christian god, but they never went to church or anything. smtimes when I say that god is dead or that I don't care or smth simmilar they say not to blasphem lol

anyways I was sent to a christin school, but that ws more like a gratitude , because the director of that school saved my life once. anyways I quit after 4 years (4th grade) one day just said that I" m not going to that school again.

I was pagan till some 10 years, then 2 years christian (due to the influence of that school), but as more as I learned about christianity from inside, the more I saw it as a fraud and took great fun in finding contradictions.
After I quit the school I was latvian pagan again.
Now I'm an atheistical latvian pagan (meaning- don't believe in gods, but accept the ancient laws, honour codex and such)

My parents are agnostics bordering on atheism. Though they tend to be very private with their views, as they don't want to antagonize anyone in this overwhelmingly religious country (USA.)

I think that's wise. The only place I trot out my atheism uninvited is the Internet. In interpersonal relationships I keep it to myself, unless specifically asked. Though I tend to be quite publically vocal on political issues as well as church/state separation.

I was never religious. As early as preschool, I have memories of thinking about life and death, and how pathetic and desperate the religious people were about it all.

==============================================
Cris wrote:
At the age of 17 I did choose to think more about Xtian teachings and became deeply involved to the point that one can say I had become a devout Xtian. I was heavily involved in Church activities, including weekend conferences, bible study sessions, and local youth groups.

At around 20, having found that Xtianity had answered none of my deeper probing questions, I simply rejected the entire religion as being very shallow.

There was enormous emotion involved in Xtianity but all meaningful searching questions were evaded, much like Tony1 and Ekimlaw have demonstrated here recently, e.g. a true Xtian can only understand through spiritual revelation. Having totally immersed myself in Xtianity and was still faced with evasion and clearly no spiritual revelations appeared then really my only meaningful choice was to reject the entire religion as a fraud.

That was 30 years ago and I have retained an interest in Xtianity ever since in the hope that perhaps there is something to it. But I quickly lost patience with the same stale rhetoric of the need for faith and believing first, and that God will reveal himself in his own time, i.e. zero answers, a dream world of self-delusion.
==============================================



"[The seeds that fell] on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."
--- Luke 8:13


I hope you enjoy your life down here in this vale of tears, Cris. Because for you, sadly, it doesn't get any better. Whether you're right... or wrong. A pretty uplifting thought, hey?

-Mike

tears can be beautiful and besides- our world is wonderful

-------
strange- I have witnessed most christians to regard ou world as the valley of tears or world of pain or smthing simmilar. It seems that christians can not even wait to die and get into their heaven.

What disgusts me is that they don't appriciate the world they live in. This amazing universe, this beauty- they don't deserve it , if talk like that about it.
-------
well - die then, get into your eaven by your all loving deity. worship him and sing happy songs.:bugeye:

----
our paradise is here- on earth, milky way galaxy, our universe

My parents are agnostics/atheists, and so am i. Both my parents are in careers that involve science and i was brought up being tought that science was right. As i learned about the religions other people follow, i found that science seemed to be much more accurate about things. I have been to church a total of maybe five times in my life, and always felt out of place there.

I am a firm agnostic though, not an atheist. I won't go into details unless you want me too, but i've had experiences that make me almost believe that there is some higher power, and then i've had experiences that make me more inclined not to believe. The world as i see it is not in black and white, but shades of grey, and i'm happy with that.

==============================================
Avatar wrote:
tears can be beautiful and besides- our world is wonderful
==============================================


"Tears can be beautiful." Yeah, but not tears of pain and anguish. Yes, The physical world (waterfalls, oceans, beaches, canyons, tropical paradises, etc.) is indeed "wonderful".


==============================================
Avatar wrote:
What disgusts me is that [Christians] don't appriciate the world they live in. This amazing universe, this beauty- they don't deserve it , if [they] talk like that about it.
==============================================



When I'm talking about the evils of this world, I'm talking about:
rush hour traffic
cancer
heart attacks
pestilence
depressions
drugs
drive by shootings
crack babies
anthrax
homeless children
serial killers
terrorism
World Wars
attrocities
the welfare state
rampant poverty
famine
prostitution
AIDS
preying on innocence
jihads
evictions
alzheimers
murders
robberies
divorce
drunkenness
hate
lewdness
the loss of innocence
motor vehicle accidents
plane crashes
suffering
kidnappings
rape
death
among many other things.

I obviously wasn't speaking about astronomy and nature Einstein.



==============================================
Avatar wrote:
well - die then, get into your eaven by your all loving deity. worship him and sing happy songs.
==============================================


Real cute.


==============================================
Avatar wrote:
our paradise is here- on earth, milky way galaxy, our universe
==============================================


Wrong. YOUR paradise is here. So go out and enjoy it!


-Mike

Yeah, but not tears of pain and anguish.
tears of happiness can be beautiful
When I'm talking about the evils of this world, I'm talking about : that's exactly what I was talking about- I could make a twice as long list with the good things. Christians see only misery. pathetic
Wrong. YOUR paradise is here. So go out and enjoy it! thanx- I'm already doing that:)
how do you like your miserable valley of pain to live in?

==============================================
"My mother... believed in god..." - Xev

"Strangely I grew up going to a Baptist church every sunday, and bible study group every Wednesday." - Joeman

"...my parents believed in god..." - Increan

"...my parents believe in christian god..." - Avatar
==============================================


So being raised by theists doesn't automatically mean you will be a theist. Yet that is what many atheists claim. Hmmm... very interesting.


Conversely...
==============================================
"My parents would not call themselves atheists or anything else related to religion. They never gave a damn about it either way." - Adam

"My parents had no real religious beliefs." - Cris

"My parents are agnostics bordering on atheism." - Overdoze

"My parents are agnostics/atheists, and so am i." - Nova1021
==============================================


So many atheists ridicule Christians about being "brought up in Christian homes", yet many of you were brought up in atheist/agnostic homes.

Question: If you were raised in atheistic or agnostic homes, and believe like your parents, how is that different than the Christian equivalent?


Maybe now we can finally dispense with the old "product of one's environment" argument.


-Mike

"Yet that is what many atheists claim. Hmmm... very interesting."

Many people become theists because their parents were theists. This does not mean ALL theists....


"Question: If you were raised in atheistic or agnostic homes, and believe like your parents, how is that different than the Christian equivalent?"

It's not. Becoming atheistic because your parents were is no different than being theistic because your parents were.

Maybe now we can finally dispense with the old "product of one's environment" argument.
you didn't take notice the specific type of people visiting sciforums mostly

if the results vere taken from 10 different forums- then it might be that, but you've got only SCIforums members response

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
So many atheists ridicule Christians about being "brought up in Christian homes", yet many of you were brought up in atheist/agnostic homes.

Question: If you were raised in atheistic or agnostic homes, and believe like your parents, how is that different than the Christian equivalent?


It's so ironic how you completely miss the irony! If it's indeed true that you believe what you were raised with, then -- oops -- there goes the "absolute Truth" of any particular religion. Your beliefs are the products of your culture. Surprise! :p


Maybe now we can finally dispense with the old "product of one's environment" argument.


And perhaps we should. If you were raised in a Hindu family, would you more likely be a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Hindu?

At least we atheists have the minimalist and the sanest of all positions: we reject any and all religious belief. That's the same thing as not having been socially conditioned at all -- having been born with no religious predisposition (as is the case universally) and having grown up with no religion being forced down our throats (which is rather a rare exception to the rule.) At least those of us to whom it applies. The ones that came from religious backgrounds had it tougher, of course. They had to de-condition themselves.

Mike:
I hope you enjoy your life down here in this vale of tears, Cris. Because for you, sadly, it doesn't get any better. Whether you're right... or wrong. A pretty uplifting thought, hey?

No, it doesn't. Life hurts, and one has to be strong to survive it and flourish.

Vale of tears? No fucking shit, Mike. This universe looks to be the creation of a manic-depressive. There is so much incredible beauty here, and so much suffering.

So what does one do?

One stays strong. One accepts that, no, it does not get any fucking better than this and strives to overcome.

"My mother... believed in god..." - Xev

Misses the substance of my post. I said I was not raised theistic.

Ekim,

"[The seeds that fell] on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."
--- Luke 8:13 But it was I who did the testing and xtianity failed every test. It is nothing but a fantasy so there is nothing in which to take root. Delude yourself all you like but you have nothing of substance to offer me. Those who stay are the weak minded and the dreamers.

I hope you enjoy your life down here in this vale of tears, Cris. Because for you, sadly, it doesn't get any better. Whether you're right... or wrong. A pretty uplifting thought, hey?I have absolutely no illusions about what the universe offers. It offers nothing but a challenge for us to survive. There is no promise that it will be easy or painless. But the universe is also an incredibly beautiful place and life is a precious prize that is worth every effort to preserve and to savor.

Everything I have that has value has come through effort, and often pain and definitely hard work. The xtian way is to give up everything, make no effort, and trust everything to a fantasy. And evangelists like you deliberately spread this corrupting influence and encourage others to give up their lives and to stop striving for survival. This is the evil that is religion. And xtianity is perhaps the greatest evil of them all.

As others here have indicated, xtianity teaches that man is corrupt, and has no hope, and that life has no value, in short xtianity teaches ultimate negativity.

Perhaps one of the greatest irritations I have experienced throughout my study of xtianity is the continual condescending and arrogant nature of xtians, as you have demonstrated once again in your post.

Cris

Hmm, all this talk of beauty and tears may inspire me to write a new poem. Speaking of which, some of you may enjoy my site, it's in my profile, only the poetry section is up right now though.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joeman
Buhddism considers other religions as "legit". Unlike Islam or Christianity, it doesn't say it's way is the right way or the only way.

Joeman, do you know that when the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had all the idols in the mosques destroyed, he specifically instructed that a picture of Mary holding baby Jesus, to remain.

Just thought i'd share that with you.

Love

Jan Ardena.

V2
Where were you that night
under the moonlit sky,
I wanted to love and dance with your tears,
but you were not near.

What was I to think to find you away;
were you a shadow or a dream of my passion,
do you love or hate or simply forget -
hurricane in my mind.

If it was a day and I knew your name,
I'd probably look to see you again,
till I find my end or forget your smile
and traces in my heart.

But all is dark and stars are there-
their light is filling up my soul;
you are not here to recall your name,
I love the stars and forget your tears.



I'll look at your page in a moment:)

==============================================
Xev wrote:
Life hurts, and one has to be strong to survive it and flourish.
==============================================


I agree Xev.



==============================================
Xev wrote:
Vale of tears? No fucking shit, Mike. This universe looks to be the creation of a manic-depressive. There is so much incredible beauty here, and so much suffering.
==============================================



The question of evil has bothered mankind forever.



==============================================
Xev wrote:
So what does one do?
==============================================



Of course each of us have our methods. Mine would be to take refuge in God. Yours would be... paganism, Cthulhu, ice cream... ;)



==============================================
Xev wrote:
One stays strong. One accepts that, no, it does not get any fucking better than this and strives to overcome.
==============================================



But Xev, the Christian has something that atheists don't seem to. Namely "hope". I don't see how an atheist can have hope for a bright tomorrow, given the fact that the world is often such a horrid place. For every beautiful thing, there is a horrible thing. Even if religion is all hogwash, at LEAST the Christian (or really any religious person) has some HOPE of a better place in the future.

That by itself almost justifies theism.


==============================================
Xev wrote:
[Saying that my mother believes in God] misses the substance of my post. I said I was not raised theistic.
==============================================


I realize this. So maybe I should have slipped you into the other category. The ones who were NOT raised in a religious environment. Either way, my point is made.

As adults, we often adhere to what we are exposed to as children, but NO ONE will adhere to a belief he knows for a fact, deep down, is baloney.

I didn't mean to offend you!!! If I did, I appologize.

Take care...

-Mike

he Christian has something that atheists don't seem to. Namely "hope".
Atheists bacsically tend to lay their hope on humans

==============================================
Cris wrote:
But it was I who did the testing and xtianity failed every test.
==============================================



Christianity failed your test? Tell me something, do your students test YOU to find out what THEY know?

Geez and you call me arrogant.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
It is nothing but a fantasy so there is nothing in which to take root. Delude yourself all you like but you have nothing of substance to offer me. Those who stay are the weak minded and the dreamers.
==============================================



Suit yourself.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
I have absolutely no illusions about what the universe offers. It offers nothing but a challenge for us to survive. There is no promise that it will be easy or painless. But the universe is also an incredibly beautiful place and life is a precious prize that is worth every effort to preserve and to savor.
==============================================


See my reply to Avatar.

Niagra Falls = beauty
A crack whore single mother with 3 kids blowing her landlord for the rent = horrible.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
Everything I have that has value has come through effort, and often pain and definitely hard work.
==============================================



Do I have anything against that? Nooo. You think living a righteous life is easy? Heck, it was too hard for you wasn't it?



==============================================
Cris wrote:
The xtian way is to give up everything, make no effort, and trust everything to a fantasy.
==============================================



How painfully wrong you are. The above statement proves you know nothing about what the Bible teaches:

Read James 1:21-27. It's all about the need to have faith which produces good "works".

"Faith that does not result in good deeds is useless." -- James 2:20

If you think it is easy to live a holy life in an unholy world then you are misguided at best.




==============================================
Cris wrote:
And evangelists like you deliberately spread this corrupting influence and encourage others to give up their lives and to stop striving for survival. This is the evil that is religion. And xtianity is perhaps the greatest evil of them all.
==============================================




I think you may need professional help if you think Christianity is "the greatest evil of them all". Maybe you need to visit a cancer ward in a local children's hospital, or maybe an inner city morgue.




==============================================
Cris wrote:
As others here have indicated, xtianity teaches that man is corrupt, and has no hope, and that life has no value, in short xtianity teaches ultimate negativity.
==============================================



Really studied those scriptures eh? That is a grossly inaccurate statement. Your theology is weak, sir.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
Perhaps one of the greatest irritations I have experienced throughout my study of xtianity is the continual condescending and arrogant nature of xtians, as you have demonstrated once again in your post.
==============================================




Think about your job as a teacher for a moment.

Isn't it difficult NOT to sound condescending when one of your students lectures you (without respecting your experience) in regards to a subject you know more about than he does?

Well, it's similar here. You portray yourself as some kind of Biblical anti-theologian or something. Yet even the most shallow theology is misunderstood by you. Yet you're going to tell me what I believe.

It seems your unbelief is not because you know everything about Christianity, and chose to reject it, but because you choose to know NOTHING about it to begin with.

Since to you, Christians are the scourge of the planet, here's something for you to mull over... what would you do if one of your children became a Christian?

-Mike

==============================================
overdoze wrote:
we atheists have the minimalist and the sanest of all positions: we reject any and all religious belief.
==============================================


So, those who agree with you are sane and those who don't are therefore insane. Well, at least your humble.


==============================================
overdoze wrote:
That's the same thing as not having been socially conditioned at all -- having been born with no religious predisposition (as is the case universally) and having grown up with no religion being forced down our throats (which is rather a rare exception to the rule.) At least those of us to whom it applies.
==============================================


If you were socially conditioned to reject the notion of God, then you were predispositioned to be atheist/agnostic. As you grew up, you sought answers. The answers to the questions that you asked determined your belief. If you had unacceptable answers from religious people, you stayed with atheism. If on the other hand, your atheist friends botched it and you found answers in God, then you would becaome a theist.

But claiming that I made no such search merely because I believe something you do not, is the height of arrogance.

I believe you atheists have made a legitimate search and most of you are convinced in your mind that you are right. That is fine. I have said this before. It is your choice. I am not castigating you for not reasoning, or not using logic, or being "crazy". NO! You are convinced. And having been convinced... so be it.

Strange isn't it? I, a Christian, just made the most polite, level-headed defense of atheism on this board I've ever seen.

Let's see if any of you have the cahones to do the same thing for for my beliefs (you open-minded people you).



==============================================
overdoze wrote:
The ones that came from religious backgrounds had it tougher, of course. They had to de-condition themselves.
==============================================



Or else "un-truth-ify" themselves ;) !

-Mike

since when was atheism=niceness+politeness

it differs on each individual

Ekim,

Christianity failed your test? Tell me something, do your students test YOU to find out what THEY know? To any intelligent student it does not take long to tell whether a teacher is teaching anything. If a teacher cannot answer direct questions and is evasive then the teacher soon loses respect and students.

You think living a righteous life is easy? Heck, it was too hard for you wasn't it?It is easier than dealing with reality, since you have an outlet – God will guide me, God will not let me down, etc. etc. Phrases I have heard so many times from xtians. When the going gets tough you will pray for help and hope it arrives. I.e. a dependence on a fantasy rather than working harder to solve your own problems.


==============================================
Cris wrote:
The xtian way is to give up everything, make no effort, and trust everything to a fantasy.
==============================================

How painfully wrong you are. The above statement proves you know nothing about what the Bible teaches: I’m talking about the struggle for human survival not about following a set of rules to please an imaginary god.

If you think it is easy to live a holy life in an unholy world then you are misguided at best. It is easy to believe in a fantasy than to search for reality. Your perceived struggle is a constant trial trying to resolve ancient contradictory mythology with the real world. In the end your desire is to die and be with your god – that is in essence giving up everything. The real effort is the struggle to survive when times are hard.

I think you may need professional help if you think Christianity is "the greatest evil of them all". Maybe you need to visit a cancer ward in a local children's hospital, or maybe an inner city morgue. And xtianity provides what solutions? It doesn’t. It teaches that those dying will find a better life in heaven. It is science that solves problems, it is science that cures diseases, and it is science that helps prevent diseases. Xtians merely pray and hope, i.e. things of no practical value.

The evil is the teaching that life is temporary and that real life begins after death. The effect is to cheapen life and to give hope that the struggle in this life will soon be over and that paradise is waiting. Instead, if people were taught that death is the end then IMHO they would make a greater effort to preserve life and the thought of risking one’s life in a war would be unthinkable.

All significant religions teach an afterlife, all such religions give such false hopes. Xtianity is the worst offender because it deliberately and very actively attempts to convert others to its unfounded ideas, and present them to the gullible as truth.


==============================================
Cris wrote:
As others here have indicated, xtianity teaches that man is corrupt, and has no hope, and that life has no value, in short xtianity teaches ultimate negativity.
==============================================

Really studied those scriptures eh? That is a grossly inaccurate statement. Your theology is weak, sir. Do you deny that xtianity portrays every man as sinful and that he must die? This is the primary teaching of xtianity: The entire reason why he must be saved and the entire reason for the need of a savior.

The fundamental essence of xtianity is the teaching that man is bad and must be saved. The entire conversion process rests on convincing others that they are inherently bad and corrupt and hence they need to be saved.

It looks more like you have missed the entire point of xtianity.

As a humanist I see man as inherently good and capable of solving his own problems through knowledge and understanding of the universe. I.e. I encourage and look for the positive.

Xtianity says you are bad so repent you sinner or suffer eternal torture. Very positive huh?

Isn't it difficult NOT to sound condescending when one of your students lectures you (without respecting your experience) in regards to a subject you know more about than he does?No never. What I teach can be shown through objective proofs independent of any experience I might have. I never have a need to sound condescending. You on the other hand have no objective proofs to offer. You have no choice but to resort to condescension.

Well, it's similar here. You portray yourself as some kind of Biblical anti-theologian or something. Yet even the most shallow theology is misunderstood by you. Yet you're going to tell me what I believe.Show me an objective proof for the existence of your god then you can rightly say you are not believing in fantasy. Until you can do that there is no way to distinguish your beliefs from fantasies and dreams.

It seems your unbelief is not because you know everything about Christianity, and chose to reject it, but because you choose to know NOTHING about it to begin with. When a fantasy can be easily recognized there seems little point examining further details when one is looking for reality. Any scrap of evidence for the basic claims that xtianity had any substance would have ensured my continued interest.

Since to you, Christians are the scourge of the planet, here's something for you to mull over... what would you do if one of your children became a Christian?Since my time as a xtian was most valuable I’d encourage them to enjoy the experience. If they are as rational as I suspect then I would leave it up to them to reach their own conclusions. I have not taught them to be atheists.

But you paint yourself in far too high esteem. Two thirds of the world is not xtian, and many who claim to be xtian hold those beliefs only out of tradition or upbringing. Truly devout xtians are definitely in a minority in the world.

Scourge? No, just irrelevant.

Cris

Ekim,

So, those who agree with you are sane and those who don't are therefore insane. Well, at least your humble.Read again. He said sanest. It is a matter of degree, whereas insane is an opposite. Unless of course you consider yourself insane.

I believe you atheists have made a legitimate search and most of you are convinced in your mind that you are right. That is fine. I have said this before. It is your choice. I am not castigating you for not reasoning, or not using logic, or being "crazy". NO! You are convinced. And having been convinced... so be it.

Strange isn't it? I, a Christian, just made the most polite, level-headed defense of atheism on this board I've ever seen. I suggest you read that again. Do you realize how utterly arrogant that sounded? And your point is agonizingly condescending.

You’ve also missed the essence of atheism again. Most atheists don’t know the answers, they don’t know they are right, and most are still searching. All we are saying is that you have not made a believable case for theism so until you do we aren’t about to believe you.

Cris

"A crack whore single mother with 3 kids blowing her landlord for the rent = horrible."

I'd have to disagree with that. I personally find that to be pretty funny.

Anyway, my parents are non-religious roman catholics who never really tried pushing religion onto me, or bothered taking me to church. I remember when I was around 4 or 5 a cousin of mine asking me if I beleived god, to which I replied "no".

However, my parents somehow deemed it necessary to send me to a catholic school. I thank them graciously for it, for nearly 12 years of closely studying christianity has shown me just how retarded religion truly is.

Let's see if any of you have the cahones to do the same thing for for my beliefs (you open-minded people you).

[bad southern accent] Ah accept, I say, Ah accept your challenge sah! [/bad southern accent]


First of all, whay do atheists write "xtianity". Are you too immature to write "Christ"?

Anywho, here goes. Ekimlaw, I have nothing against you for your religious beliefs. You have obviously looked at the information available and made your decision. Just like you say to us, "That is fine. ... It is your choice." I recognize that you must have a great deal of faith to come, as it were, to "enemy territory" and hold you own against the arguments put up against your choice.
I know some other christians online who do the same thing and get into discussions like these and i have nothing but respect. In truth, i'm surprised you even spend time in discussions like this, but i guess it's to share your beliefs with us and keep us from getting too full of hot air by reassuring ourselves all the time. ;)

how was that?:)

Mike:
The question of evil has bothered mankind forever.

It is solved when one realizes that the universe is senseless because it IS senseless. Any attempt to make it sensible, to explain the suffering, is simply a human attempt to explain and control the uncontrollable.

Of course each of us have our methods. Mine would be to take refuge in God. Yours would be... paganism, Cthulhu, ice cream...

Nah, not much Paganism. Too close to Goth, and I am Industrial. *Turns nose up at angst-ridden black-lipsticked teens*

And chocolate. And booze. And Nietzsche.

Xev wrote:
One stays strong. One accepts that, no, it does not get any fucking better than this and strives to overcome.
=============================================
But Xev, the Christian has something that atheists don't seem to. Namely "hope". I don't see how an atheist can have hope for a bright tomorrow, given the fact that the world is often such a horrid place. For every beautiful thing, there is a horrible thing. Even if religion is all hogwash, at LEAST the Christian (or really any religious person) has some HOPE of a better place in the future.

That by itself almost justifies theism.

I have no such hope in other worlds. I have my hope in the earth, and I have my hope in the stars. I have hope in my own power, in what I can create with my own two hands and my brain.

I accept. I learned early on that the world is not what I want it to be. Retreating into my fantasy life saved me, but I knew that I could not stay there.

No offense intended! I don't mean that you're living in a fantasy world! If it is real to you, more power to you.

But for me, it would be. I think it is this way for most athiests, and this is why your explanation does not really justify theism for everyone.

As adults, we often adhere to what we are exposed to as children, but NO ONE will adhere to a belief he knows for a fact, deep down, is baloney.

I didn't mean to offend you!!! If I did, I appologize.

Not offended at all, and didn't mean to sound that way.

As for "cojones", yes Mike, you have them. I have nothing but respect for you defending your beliefs against a majority of a minority. You are not trolling in the sense I once thought....you actually have something to say and you say it well.

Originally posted by Cris
You’ve also missed the essence of atheism again. Most atheists don’t know the answers, they don’t know they are right, and most are still searching. All we are saying is that you have not made a believable case for theism so until you do we aren’t about to believe you.

Cris

Cris, you might as well call yourself an agnostic.

Atheists gain bad publicity, since you live in a mostly religious world.

From a question of how atheists became atheists, to the defence of atheism.

My parents dragged my ass to church since I was a child, been brought up in a hispanic community the denomination was catholicism, as a young teen I rarely went to church, I became a christian in my late teens, but soon became a babtist in my early twenties. I quess I was searching, for answers I couldn't find.

Why did I like drugs?. What was so wrong with fornication? Why is onanism a sin?. Things of that nature. And other religious questions such as, "Why are there colored people, different races, if we only come from Adam & Eve?, Where did Able's wife come from? shit like that.

I had a nervous break down, needless to say a little too much fun with drugs, when I got out of the looney ward, I became a babtist, and went throught the babtism and accepting Jesus again in my life, no sooner that I moved from one city to another I started again with drugs, I was weak.

In my early twenties, which was twenty years ago, my life was in chaos, then I found a little Russian lady who changed my life, Ayn Rand, from a noble to another noble, to all the philosophical writings of her. I became a different person. I owe my life to Objectivism. It saved me.

Chosen,

Cris, you might as well call yourself an agnostic.

Atheists gain bad publicity, since you live in a mostly religious world.We can an end up in a discussion on terminology again, which is becoming tiresome. But the common root of all atheists is disbelief. So my statement is accurate. The fact that some atheists also believe in non-existence is just a more rare occurrence.

The subject of agnosticism is far less well-defined than it appears. Weak atheism appears very much like a form of agnosticism, and I guess you are seeing agnosticism in that respect.

I think though we could just dispense with the labels. I really don’t care what I am called and I think I would prefer no label since each label comes with pre-conceptions that as I have said earlier are often incorrect.

But I’ll repeat: Common to all atheists is a disbelief in the claims made for the existence of a god or gods. This is not the same as believing that a god or gods do not exist. The difference is important and significant.

As for a mostly religious world: Perhaps. But I have observed that for the vast majority of people religion is not a significant component in their lives. In Islamic countries the story tends to be different. In the western world many believe because it is a tradition while the appearance of something more is just a perception created by a few very vocal fundamentalists. If the fundamentalists were discredited then I suspect it would not be long before religion would fade into meaninglessness.

Cris

Originally posted by Nova1021
Anywho, here goes. Ekimlaw, I have nothing against you for your religious beliefs. You have obviously looked at the information available and made your decision. Just like you say to us, "That is fine. ... It is your choice." I recognize that you must have a great deal of faith to come, as it were, to "enemy territory" and hold you own against the arguments put up against your choice.
I know some other christians online who do the same thing and get into discussions like these and i have nothing but respect. In truth, i'm surprised you even spend time in discussions like this, but i guess it's to share your beliefs with us and keep us from getting too full of hot air by reassuring ourselves all the time. ;)
how was that?:) [/B]



Hey Nova1021,

Please let me say that I really appreciate those kind and very open-minded words. You have proven with this post how polite and level-headed you are. You are able to firmly believe your views while respecting my right to believe mine (without saying that I represent "the greatest evil of all"). You must be cool.

Thank you! I enjoy debating with the friends I have here (Xev, GB Gil-Trans Global, James R) and yes, at times it is frustrating when I am told I have no capacity fort reason or logic. Anyway, as the saying goes "iron sharpens iron"!

Thanks again Nova...

-Mike

Hey Godless... sounds like you searched tenaciously for a way. I have read Rand's work. Politically speaking, I find her to be a tad on the selfish side (I am being tactful). As for her religious side (or anti-religious as the case may be) I must confess a total ignorance. I know nothing of her stance on God although I had heard that she is an atheist, which wouldn't surprise me considering the Russian view of orthodoxy.

It seems like you have lived a full life. Here's to hoping you find happiness and fulfillment, and if you already have, then I am glad for you.

Peace,

-Mike

Hey Xev,

Thanks! You're awesome!

-Mike

Thank you! I enjoy debating with the friends I have here (Xev, GB Gil-Trans Global, James R) and yes, at times it is frustrating when I am told I have no capacity fort reason or logic. Anyway, as the saying goes "iron sharpens iron"!

Thanks again Nova...


:) Any time. It's refreshing to meet a christian in one of these debates who has taken a look at all the facts and doesn't just arbitrarily dismiss the opinions of the "opposition". Often christians aren't as open minded.

See, cant we all just get along? Group hug! *forum goers flee in all directions*

hehehe

==============================================
Cris wrote:
To any intelligent student it does not take long to tell whether a teacher is teaching anything. If a teacher cannot answer direct questions and is evasive then the teacher soon loses respect and students.
==============================================


What if the teacher gives clear answers that the student cannot or will not understand? Then does the teacher still deserve the disrespect? Is the validity of a teacher's knowledge completely based on his students perceptions?



==============================================
Cris wrote:
It is easier than dealing with reality, since you have an outlet –
==============================================


No Cris, I have an inlet... namely God's love.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
God will guide me, God will not let me down, etc. etc.
==============================================



So true.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
Phrases I have heard so many times from xtians. When the going gets tough you will pray for help and hope it arrives. I.e. a dependence on a fantasy rather than working harder to solve your own problems.
==============================================



Like being buried under a wall of concrete? If that happens to me, and I am pinned helplessly there bleeding with my legs crushed, I should "work harder to solve my own problem"? Your pie-in-the-sky atheism runs contrary to reason in this regard. God forbid, no wait... uh.. okay... Nietzsche forbid someday you find yourself in a place where you are alone against the universe. You are at the end of your tether with nowhere to turn. You are helpless and on the cusp of destruction. It is here that many cry out for God's help, or at least comfort in this time of despair. YOU will instead be clenching those pearly whites together, waiting for "the last ride". And what a hell of a ride it is. Cuz down here in this pain-ravaged world, the atheist is on their own.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
I’m talking about the struggle for human survival not about following a set of rules to please an imaginary god.
==============================================



Do you like pleasing your Earthly Father?




==============================================
Cris wrote:
It is easy to believe in a fantasy than to search for reality.
==============================================



So I must be some wierd functionally-insane oddball. Is that it?



==============================================
Cris wrote:
Your perceived struggle is a constant trial trying to resolve ancient contradictory mythology with the real world.
==============================================



Greek mythology vis a vis Christian theology: compare and contrast. If you can't tell the difference between cultural folk-myths and religious theology... I can't help you.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
In the end your desire is to die and be with your god – that is in essence giving up everything. The real effort is the struggle to survive when times are hard.
==============================================



What an inane statement. How shallow. If my "desire" was to die, I would have taken the carbon monoxide escalator-to-heaven long ago. You want a "real effort". How about Mother Theresa? She really lived a life of ease didn't she? Also, just for interests sake, read 2 Corinthians 6:3-13, and learn about Paul's luxurious care free life as a Christian.




==============================================
Cris wrote:
And xtianity provides what solutions? It doesn’t.
==============================================



You mean worthless things like:

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Galatians 5:14)
"Love your enemies" (Luke 6:35)
"Let us not become weary in doing good..." (Galatians 6:9)
"Do not take revenge..." (Romans 12:19)
"He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord , and he will reward him for what he has done." (Proverbs 19:17)
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)
"Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." (Romans 13:7)

I could go on and on (but I won't). The point is, how dare you claim that the Christian life has no value and offers no solutions to life.

Christianity brought civilization where before was savagery.




==============================================
Cris wrote:
It teaches that those dying will find a better life in heaven.
==============================================



It takes more than dying to get to Heaven.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
It is science that solves problems, it is science that cures diseases, and it is science that helps prevent diseases.
==============================================



Are there any atheist hospitals in Zimbabwe? Name one atheism-based charitable organization.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
Xtians merely pray and hope, i.e. things of no practical value.
==============================================



In the case of a level 5 tornado, or plummeting to your death, or maybe an inoperable brain-tumor what would you suggest instead?



==============================================
Cris wrote:
The evil is the teaching that life is temporary...
==============================================




Do you have scientific evidence that I am not aware of that life is NOT temporary?



==============================================
Cris wrote:
...and that real life begins after death.
==============================================



Not for everyone.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
The effect is to cheapen life...
==============================================


Cheapen life? Read Colossians 1:10.


==============================================
Cris wrote:
...and to give hope that the struggle in this life will soon be over and that paradise is waiting.
==============================================



Yeah, that is a terrible notion.


==============================================
Cris wrote:
Instead, if people were taught that death is the end then IMHO they would make a greater effort to preserve life and the thought of risking one’s life in a war would be unthinkable.
==============================================




Sorry, that isn't how survival of the fittest works.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
All significant religions teach an afterlife, all such religions give such false hopes. Xtianity is the worst offender because it deliberately and very actively attempts to convert others to its unfounded ideas, and present them to the gullible as truth.
==============================================



Boy you must think I'm pretty stupid.




==============================================
Cris wrote:
Do you deny that xtianity portrays every man as sinful and that he must die? This is the primary teaching of xtianity: The entire reason why he must be saved and the entire reason for the need of a savior.
==============================================



I will not waste my time explaining something that children in Sunday school learn at the 1st grade level. I thought you were some kind of Uber-Theologian. Why the inaccurate summation of basic Christian theology then?



==============================================
Cris wrote:
The fundamental essence of xtianity is the teaching that man is bad and must be saved. The entire conversion process rests on convincing others that they are inherently bad and corrupt and hence they need to be saved.
==============================================



Go visit a prison. You will find out about the evil that man can do. Heck, forget that, check out how people act when they drive.




==============================================
Cris wrote:
It looks more like you have missed the entire point of xtianity.
==============================================




Ha ha ha... good one.




==============================================
Cris wrote:
As a humanist I see man as inherently good and capable of solving his own problems through knowledge and understanding of the universe. I.e. I encourage and look for the positive.
==============================================



How sweet. In a perfect world that might be so. But this isn't a perfect world.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
Xtianity says you are bad so repent you sinner or suffer eternal torture. Very positive huh?
==============================================



It is positive if it keeps their eternal soul from everlasting torment. Can you name a better gift than salvation from eternal torment?




==============================================
Cris wrote:
What I teach can be shown through objective proofs independent of any experience I might have. ==============================================




Same here. You say the Bible says one thing when it clearly and objectively does NOT.


==============================================
Cris wrote:
I never have a need to sound condescending.
==============================================



Just inane ("Christianity is the worst evil of them all").



==============================================
Cris wrote:
You on the other hand have no objective proofs to offer. You have no choice but to resort to condescension.
==============================================



Do you know what my last resort really is? I cease and desist. I won't brow beat you. I just speak my points (sometimes passionately) and move on. Once I have said all I can, I stop. Then it's up to us to accept or reject whatever we have said. And we are quite free to do so. I can't force you and you can't force me to believe anything. Praise God for that!!



==============================================
Cris wrote:
Show me an objective proof for the existence of your god then you can rightly say you are not believing in fantasy.
==============================================



Better yet, show me an objective truth that he doesn't. After all you have more to lose than I do.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
Until you can do that there is no way to distinguish your beliefs from fantasies and dreams.
==============================================



My dreams involve crazy random events like taking a gondola through the mall. My fantasies include meeting and being pals with Bruce Springsteen, or being married to Angie Harmon, Jennifer Connoly, or maybe Winona Ryder.

Whereas my beliefs include a strong desire to live for Jesus Christ, despite my unworthiness of his love.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
When a fantasy can be easily recognized there seems little point examining further details when one is looking for reality.
==============================================



Okay.




==============================================
Cris wrote:
Any scrap of evidence for the basic claims that xtianity had any substance would have ensured my continued interest.
==============================================




Oh well excuse me. Hey, I thought you were never condescending.




==============================================
Cris wrote:
...you paint yourself in far too high esteem. Two thirds of the world is not xtian, and many who claim to be xtian hold those beliefs only out of tradition or upbringing. Truly devout xtians are definitely in a minority in the world.
==============================================



So what? Would it make a difference to you if two thirds of the world WERE Christians?




==============================================
Cris wrote:
[Do I believe Christianity is a] Scourge? No, just irrelevant.
==============================================


So irrelevant that you have written 2600 + posts debating about it.


-Mike

Ekim,

What if the teacher gives clear answers that the student cannot or will not understand? Then does the teacher still deserve the disrespect? Is the validity of a teacher's knowledge completely based on his students perceptions? A teacher’s respect is earned based on the success of the teaching and not on what the teacher knows. If the student will not or cannot understand then the teacher must adopt more creative approaches. I have taught and lectured frequently in many countries during the past 20 years and I have designed industrial level training courses. The challenge of portraying complex issues to others who may not be ready is certainly not simple.

The possession of knowledge and the ability to teach are two distinct issues. You are a bible scholar; but effectively teaching others what you know is a separate skill that I do not believe you posses.

It is not that I cannot understand you or that I am unable but that I don’t see any need. Before reading any reference material one would first normally identify a desire or a need to absorb such information. In this case: Whether adopting a religion is needed such that one would be motivated to read the official guide. From my perspective I see no need for religion. To encourage me to have an interest in the bible you would first need to convince me that religion is needed. Following that you would need to convince me that your particular selection has greater value than any other choice.

Moving on: Much of your post contained somewhat trivial innuendos and out of context quotes, which I will ignore, and are really not worthy of your talents.

Like being buried under a wall of concrete? If that happens to me, and I am pinned helplessly there bleeding with my legs crushed, I should "work harder to solve my own problem"? Your pie-in-the-sky atheism runs contrary to reason in this regard. God forbid, no wait... uh.. okay... Nietzsche forbid someday you find yourself in a place where you are alone against the universe. You are at the end of your tether with nowhere to turn. You are helpless and on the cusp of destruction. It is here that many cry out for God's help, or at least comfort in this time of despair. YOU will instead be clenching those pearly whites together, waiting for "the last ride". And what a hell of a ride it is. Cuz down here in this pain-ravaged world, the atheist is on their own. I’ve listed the entire quote because it was difficult to summarize it.

We are not communicating here. You have not grasped my point, sorry, I’ll try again.

But be sure that I have never called out to an imaginary supernatural in times of desperation. I am and always will be looking for a reasoned solution right up until the moment I die. And to some extent that reflects the point I am making, but more on the scale of humanity.

Perhaps my point is too subtle. All the time that people hold a belief that their fate is in the hands of a supernatural entity, or that their material life is just transitory, then they will tend to not make the extra effort to seek more permanent solutions. The cumulative effect of billions of people over time following the same attitude will have certainly meant many lost opportunities for human progress. If that is combined with the past transgressions of the Church in actively discouraging scientific research, then we can see that human progress has been very probably severely inhibited by the presence of religious beliefs. This is what I find offensive about religions.

But I have met Xtians who when faced with difficult choices do indeed give up and state that they are in God’s hands and that he will guide them. They then simply do nothing and wait for events to unfold. Their primary effort is to pray.

If my "desire" was to die, I would have taken the carbon monoxide escalator-to-heaven long ago. You want a "real effort". How about Mother Theresa? She really lived a life of ease didn't she? Also, just for interests sake, read 2 Corinthians 6:3-13, and learn about Paul's luxurious care free life as a Christian. Suicide is against your rules, but many have killed themselves in a desire to be with their god.

I know what you intended but Mother Theresa is a poor example.

Mother Theresa
This ex-Saint is quite famous. She is famous, in the press, for being nice and kind. In politics and behind-the-scenes, however, she is famous for being a fake, a fraud, a little lucky, and a bit of a preacher.

Upon death, her bank account was in millions of dollars. Although this may seem a lot, when we consider the amount that was donated to her cause on an annual basis it is not surprising.

She did, after all, own, upkeep and finance over one hundred nunneries.

Her pastime was politics, and would frequently fly on her private jet to America to consult with politicians, schools and Church leaders. But what was so important to warrant her traveling such distances?

Hot topics for Mother Theresa were contraception (especially in the third world), divorce, "family values", etc. It is widely recognized that much of the third world is in dire need of contraceptives, but as a faithful Catholic mother Theresa objected to this and thwarted many attempts to distribute contraceptives.

Neither did Theresa, despite popular opinion, own any Hospital in Calcutta. Nor did she own any painkillers, even. She believed that all suffering was conducive to her religion, that God's way was supreme, and that repenting was a more important cure than any medical practice.Sounds like she is a cause of much suffering.

Like I say, what we need are real practical solutions to world problems, not prayer and preaching.

But my point was aimed at the larger scale as I described earlier.

You mean worthless things like:

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Galatians 5:14)
"Love your enemies" (Luke 6:35)
"Let us not become weary in doing good..." (Galatians 6:9)
"Do not take revenge..." (Romans 12:19)
"He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord , and he will reward him for what he has done." (Proverbs 19:17)
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)
"Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." (Romans 13:7)

I could go on and on (but I won't). The point is, how dare you claim that the Christian life has no value and offers no solutions to life. Apart from the reference to ‘the Lord” we have all things regardless of Xtianity, and none depend on the supernatural.

Christianity brought civilization where before was savagery. And if Xtianity hadn’t existed perhaps we would have had something far more effective where people looked more to themselves for solutions rather than hope for non-existent supernatural interventions.

Name one atheism-based charitable organization. Try the international Red Cross. It is entirely secular.

But you miss the point about atheism again. Atheism hasn’t been an institution, or an organization comparable to religions. It is simply a disbelief in theist claims, trying to criticize it for not doing something is meaningless.


==============================================
Cris wrote:
Xtians merely pray and hope, i.e. things of no practical value.
==============================================
In the case of a level 5 tornado, or plummeting to your death, or maybe an inoperable brain-tumor what would you suggest instead? If billions of people had not given up so easily then over time we may well have had solutions for all of these things now.

Do you have scientific evidence that I am not aware of that life is NOT temporary? No none. All evidence points to life being very temporary. So what’s your point?

Xtians believe they are eternal or can become eternal. Didn’t the alleged Jesus allegedly say “believe in me and you shall have everlasting life”? Isn’t this the real goal of every xtian, to live forever?

I will not waste my time explaining something that children in Sunday school learn at the 1st grade level. I thought you were some kind of Uber-Theologian. Why the inaccurate summation of basic Christian theology then? Here is a longer version then –

Christian mythology.

1. Adam was immortal.
2. To sin means to disobey God.
3. Adam sinned.
4. The punishment for sin is death.
5. Adam died.
6. All men after Adam inherited his mortality.
7. The nature of all men became sinful.
8. All men sin.
9. All men died.
10. Jesus was divine.
11. Jesus gave up his divinity.
12. Jesus came to earth as a man.
13. Jesus never sinned.
14. Jesus did not deserve to die because he never sinned.
15. Jesus accepted the punishment due to every man.
16. Jesus sacrificed himself to God in place of all mankind.
17. God could raise Jesus to life again because Jesus did not break his laws.
18. God resurrected Jesus.
19. God gave Jesus a new nature that was free from the sinful nature of man.
20. God gave man the gift of eternal life if man believed in Jesus.
21. Man no longer needed to die for his sins.
22. Man had to request forgiveness from Jesus if he wanted to live.
23. When men die they have to wait for the second coming of Jesus and judgment.
24. Those who are judged worthy will be resurrected to a heavenly paradise.
25. Those who are judged not worthy will suffer torment for eternity.
The key to xtian evangelism rests on convincing potential converts that they are sinful, see 1 thru 8. That they have inherited Adam’s sinful nature. I took this from a xtian children’s web site last year sometime and it has been discussed in these forums before. Sorry, I didn’t keep the link.

I.e. The essence of xtian evangelism rests on convincing people that they are bad and need saving. This is essentially a negative activity and why I say xtianity is ultimately negative. It encourage people to think badly of themselves so they are forced to consider a higher power who is perfect and worthy of worship. It’s a sales job.

Go visit a prison. You will find out about the evil that man can do. Heck, forget that, check out how people act when they drive. And if xtianity hadn’t spent centuries teaching people that they are wicked and must be saved then perhaps more people would not think so little of themselves and we’d have a safer society.

How sweet. In a perfect world that might be so. But this isn't a perfect world. No I agree, and the sooner we can rid ourselves of xtianity then the sooner we can start our recovery.

It is positive if it keeps their eternal soul from everlasting torment. Can you name a better gift than salvation from eternal torment? The question is meaningless until you can show such things as souls and eternal torment are real.

==============================================
Cris wrote:
Show me an objective proof for the existence of your god then you can rightly say you are not believing in fantasy.
==============================================
Better yet, show me an objective truth that he doesn't. After all you have more to lose than I do. Uh but the exercise is pointless since fantasies are imaginary. However, try this – 24 inches from your face is an invisible and immaterial crystalline dodecahedron that possesses unimaginable power and was responsible for the creation of the universe. Prove to me that this crystal does not exist and I will prove to you that your god does not exist.

And why have I the most to lose? If your god does not exist and you have placed all your hopes of survival on your belief then when you die you will cease to exist. On the other hand I am actively working on technology that will improve and extend life and if I die then my insurance covers the cost of the cryogenic preservation of my brain before it decays. If technology of the future can revive me I will survive. You will remain dead.

If on the other hand a god does exist then I trust such intelligence would also be just and will judge me accordingly. Either that or I will continue my debate with him/her.

Whereas my beliefs include a strong desire to live for Jesus Christ, despite my unworthiness of his love.Correct if I am wrong but I don’t think I have ever accused anyone of fantasizing about a god, my point is that the concept of a god is a fantasy. Hmmm, too subtle. I’ll try again - In the absence of evidence that an object is real then the belief that the object is real is a fantasy –

From Webster:

the free play of creative imagination, or

a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: as a : a fanciful design or invention, or

the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need.

So irrelevant that you have written 2600 + posts debating about it.Yes, you are right, and I guess that is why my message count has been dropping off recently. You and your fellow xtians have had a profound effect on me these past 2.5 years at sciforums. Where I might have had some minor doubts when I began in Jan 2000, your posts and posts like yours have encouraged me to focus and do far more research than I would have done otherwise. It has been fun and I am thankful that I no longer have any doubts about the irrelevance of xtianity. It is perhaps time for me to spend more time in other forums looking at more useful interests.

Ekim, these posts are long, I’ve spent the evening on this one and I suspect you spent some time on yours. Have we wasted our time? I’m not really under any illusion that I will change your mind as I suspect you must by now be convinced you stand no chance of changing mine. I enjoy the jousting, but we could be doing other things.

Take care whatever you believe.
Cris

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

We can an end up in a discussion on terminology again, which is becoming tiresome. But the common root of all atheists is disbelief. So my statement is accurate. The fact that some atheists also believe in non-existence is just a more rare occurrence.

True, I'm not arguing terminology at all. It is laborious and useless to do so.

But what interests me is what you have stated.

Most atheists don’t know the answers, they don’t know they are right, and most are still searching.

I think most atheists are confident that God existing is sempiternally small. Why would they "search"? :bugeye:

It just sounds more like a weak-agnostic to me.

Chosen,

I think most atheists are confident that God existing is sempiternally small. Why would they "search"? Ah I see your confusion.

Sorry, I didn't mean that atheists are searching for a god but rather answers to the universe and everything. The concept of a god is only one idea and atheists find that proposal unnacceptable.

The search will be for alternatives to supernatural claims. And science offers probably thr best method for finding real answers.

Does that help?
Cris

Hate to burst your bubble, Ekim (oh no, wait, I can't, it's [Shoddy-]God[dy] reinforced!), but <i>inlet</i> is only meant for use as a geographical term, whereas outlet is the right word here. :rolleyes:

Typical Ekimclass (a class of society I have nicknamed Ekimclass, generally very religious and a lot of other things as well) behaviour, using a word wrong because it sounds like it came from two roots that don't satisfy the meaning you want it to have... :rolleyes:

Is atheism is a non-prophet organization?

Pooyak,

Non-prophet!

LOL, I like that.

Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
Hate to burst your bubble, Ekim (oh no, wait, I can't, it's [Shoddy-]God[dy] reinforced!), but <i>inlet</i> is only meant for use as a geographical term, whereas outlet is the right word here. :rolleyes:

Typical Ekimclass (a class of society I have nicknamed Ekimclass, generally very religious and a lot of other things as well) behaviour, using a word wrong because it sounds like it came from two roots that don't satisfy the meaning you want it to have... :rolleyes:

Despite the fact that my use of "inlet" was a PUN, and because I confused select atheists with a percieved grammatical faux paux, I am now furiously lashing my back and shoulders into ribbons with a cat-of-nine-tails!

Hey I have an entire class of society named after me? Wow!!

-Mike

Cris,

Of course, I personally believe that you made several errors in your reply to me. But responding at this stage would be repeating myself and a case of wheel-spinning. Therefore I will humbly bow out of this discussion with a courteous "Thank you", and leave the chips laying where they are. To coin a phrase, "we'll agree to disagree".

However, as usual, thanks for the lively debate. I think we both came out with our respective faiths intact. ;)

And Cris, don't don't forget, we are attempting to convince the unconvinced, not vice versa.

Until next time...

-Mike

Despite the fact that my use of "inlet" was a PUN, and because I confused select atheists with a percieved grammatical faux paux, I am now furiously lashing my back and shoulders into ribbons with a cat-of-nine-tails! Well, Mike, that'll learn ya ... ;)

But such is the frustration of dealing with literalism. Myself, I'm starting to wonder if writing for Sciforums is a good exercise in writing.

I will say, though, that GB-GIL's interpretation would be the common one to my experience when amid my atheist phase. It's one of the communication difficulties that convinced me to leave atheism as a specific idea at the rubbish tip alongside other puerile pseudo-intellectualisms.

Maybe I'll bother to re-hash that story for this topic; it seems to confuse atheists and Christians alike. Of other religious ideas, though, I've met considerably fewer people who have difficulties understanding the tale.

In the meantime, consider that phenomenon whereby some Christians (and, strangely, atheists alike) have difficulty conceiving of the word "god" meaning anything but IHVH or Jesus.

Well, now you're apparently not even allowed a cute (perhaps even cheesy) turn of phrase because such is what happens when people insist on "literalism" according to their own paradigm.

Tragic, that.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

In the meantime, consider that phenomenon whereby some Christians (and, strangely, atheists alike) have difficulty conceiving of the word "god" meaning anything but IHVH or Jesus.
I'm not one of them:) I usually get bashed by christians in Latvia's forums for saying "christian god" or "your god":rolleyes:

Avatar

I only pause to comment on your response because I had, frankly, some expectation of people saying, What? Who does that?

Thus, your apparent affirmation that the phenomenon exists eases my mind and is, perhaps, more important than you had intended.

thank you,
Tiassa :cool:

more important than you had intended.
perhaps...
I don't know what your full intentions are

Can atheists get insurance for acts of God?

Mike
I am now furiously lashing my back and shoulders into ribbons with a cat-of-nine-tails!

Mmmmm. Go on....what are you wearing?

'Acts of god' comes under stuff like floods and things. It would be natural occurences or something. I'm not sure

Well thanks for not jumping on my conscience, most people do, when it comes to Ayn Rand, atheists, and theists alike.

Yes Ayn Rand was an atheist, Quote: *Every argument for god every attribute ascribed to "him" rests on a false metaphisical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.
Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence--some supernatural realm--you must do it by openly denying reason, dispencing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, " To Hell with argument, I have faith." That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.
Objectivism advocates reason as man's sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is athiest. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to god, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that's all.* Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism"

Leonard was a leading man in the Objecitivism lectures given by the Ayn Rand Institute. This would have made Ayn Rand an atheist, since she started the lectures and started the objectivism philosophy movement in the late 50's early 60's.

Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence--some supernatural realm--you must do it by openly denying reason, dispencing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, " To Hell with argument, I have faith." That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.

Sorry, but I've got to pick this nonsense apart.

"Existence exists and only existence exists."

What an obvious and self-referential statement this is. Yes, existence exists… and Non-existence does not exists… by definition. This comment means nothing.

"Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal."

Talk about presumptions. This is all assumed and, actually, there is evidence that all three of these assumptions are incorrect.

"something beyond existence--some supernatural realm"

Well, now he is equating the "supernatural" with "something beyond existence" which is not the meaning of supernatural. The supernatural is something beyond nature, not beyond existence. Obviously, if something supernatural existed it would exist. The supernatural refers to occurrences (if they truly occur or not) with causes beyond the natural or normal rules of nature. Otherwise theses occurrences are simply natural ones.

"Objectivism advocates reason as man's sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is athiest."

Reason is often flawed. Reason is limited by knowledge. Observation is our sole means of knowledge. One's reason is tested in the real world and is confirmed or denied by examination.

"It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence."

Here we go again… nature is equated to existence and the "supernatural dimension" is set in opposition to existence.

"and that's all. "

You always have to love conclusions like this. Final word eh? Nothing more to be discussed? Utterly arrogant… and pure horseshit.

~Raithere

Ayn Rand is the most controversial philosopher of the twentieth century, and oviously not worthy of been picked on by inexperienced want to be's as the one Raithere, of which if he would have identified the objectivism philosophy and written books as Ayn Rand did, he would be a very rich man today.

Oviously this is not the case!!!!.


He can't even understand the simplicity of that statement "Existence exists"

Let's see if I can enlighten this weary mind.

*Existence exists--and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: That something exists which one percieves and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradictition in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciuosness.

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might aquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it "exists" and that you know it.

To exists is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was--no matter what his errors--the greatest of your philosophers, hsa stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. *Ayn Rand

Quote: Talk about presumptions. This is all assumed and, actually, there is evidence that all three of these assumptions are incorrect.

Show the freaking evidence then, don't just lead on and talk crap!.

Quote: Well, now he is equating the "supernatural" with "something beyond existence" which is not the meaning of supernatural. The supernatural is something beyond nature, not beyond existence. Obviously, if something supernatural existed it would exist. The supernatural refers to occurrences (if they truly occur or not) with causes beyond the natural or normal rules of nature. Otherwise theses occurrences are simply natural ones.

Boy have you got that one wron!!,

Supernaturalism: What is meant by "the supernatural"? Supposedly, a realm that transcends nature. What is nature? Nature is existence-the sum of that which is. It is usually "nature" when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So "nature" really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with thier identities. What, then, is "super-nature"? Something beyond the universe, beyond entities, beyond identity. It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence-a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities-a something that contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short a contradiction of every metaphisical essential. Ayn Rand

Supernatural "Webster dic."
Existing or occurring outside the normal experience of knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature; specif., of, involving, or attributed to God or a god.

Supernatural "Oxford"
not attributable to, or explicable by the laws of nature; magical; mystical.

Quote: Reason is often flawed. Reason is limited by knowledge. Observation is our sole means of knowledge. One's reason is tested in the real world and is confirmed or denied by examination

Boy if you studied in America, I can see why a nine year old Jappanese child has the education of a High School senior.

If you have no reason how the hell would you know what the F*ck you were observing?.

Quote: You always have to love conclusions like this. Final word eh? Nothing more to be discussed? Utterly arrogant… and pure horseshit.

Yea!! horse shit comming out of your un-educated mentality!!.

Godless
Ayn Rand is the most controversial philosopher of the twentieth century, and oviously not worthy of been picked on by inexperienced want to be's as the one Raithere, of which if he would have identified the objectivism philosophy and written books as Ayn Rand did, he would be a very rich man today.

Oviously this is not the case!!!!.

Obviously I pissed you off. Your assumptions here are overwhelming. You have no idea who I am, what I have accomplished, or what my experience is. I find objectivism lacking. I find Rand to be a failure even within her own philosophy. Interesting and controversial, yes, but ultimately failing examination.

He can't even understand the simplicity of that statement "Existence exists"

I understand that it's a meaningless statement. A similar statement would be "A sphere is spherical." See… self referential and meaningless.

*Existence exists--and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: That something exists which one percieves and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

No such axioms were evident. Even so, I posit that all one can maintain is self and experience. External reality, however well evidenced, is never absolutely known. As one comes to understand certain principles and facts of relativity and quantum physics one learns that our perception is fundamentally flawed. We do not perceive reality… at least not at every level.

A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

Consciousness is self-awareness. All "other-awareness" is perception or experience.

If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciuosness.

So that those who hallucinate or are fooled by illusion do not possess consciousness? Hmmm… interesting.

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might aquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it "exists" and that you know it.

Actually my consciousness could be the totality of existence and I'm just imagining everything…. but okay. For a moment, let's accept this concept of duality… "self" and "other". Now what?

Show the freaking evidence then, don't just lead on and talk crap!.

The existence of Virtual Particles voids at least two of the three assumptions. These particles come into and out of existence on their own.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/virtual_particles.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VirtualParticle.html

It is usually "nature" when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So "nature" really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with thier identities.

Ah… but the universe is not comprised of discrete entities and identity can not always be determined, the laws change... the Universe is not what Ann suspected.

"What, then, is "super-nature"? Something beyond the universe, beyond entities, beyond identity. It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence-a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities-a something that contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short a contradiction of every metaphisical essential. Ayn Rand

And I suppose that virtual particles, quantum entanglement, and superposition, are not "a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about … something that contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is"? Ann didn't obviously did not have an understanding of quantum physics… I would even be surprised if she had an understanding of relativistic physics or chaos theory. Physics has demonstrated that the Universe is not a concrete reality… there are mysteries here that defy our common perception. The universe is not a purely mechanistic device.

If you have no reason how the hell would you know what the F*ck you were observing?

Reason is a method by which we can explain our observation and test the veracity of our explanation (or belief) of that observation. Imagine a man with no senses but only reason… what exactly could he posit about the Universe and how would he verify his posits?

~Raithere

P.S. Dude were you one of Ann's infidelities or what? You seem a bit over excited.

No I'm not a total folower of Ayn Rand's Objecitivist philosophy, however you must keep in mind tht when she wrote this, much of what we know of nature was unknown. Yet it would seem impossible for her to have known as much as we do know today.

Basically it was her philosophy of which saved my life, I was lost a drug addict, drunk and of very low self esteem. Suitside was one of my fantasies of which I almost went through in my early teens.

Emotional, yes!! I've never heard of a book written by you on philosophy if that is the case come out with it!.

However to claim that her philosophy was a failure is totally ludicruous.

Ayn's philosophy was a contradiction of the norm, the norm being of the school of Plato's mystical philosophical teachings.

Ayn's philosophy is founded upon the teaching of Aristotle.

If I were to sit and tell you that the world has evolved around the basic principles of these two philosophers and that the one most chosen by governments, people, and organized religions is Plato's.

The United States is the only country in history to be founded upon the philosophical points of Aristotle. Many philosophers have come and gone, however they all have one thing in common, they either follow the school of Plato's basic principles or that of Aristotle. Ayn's was the most radical of these to come out of the school of Aristotle.

You may claim this, or that, however Ayn's work has been understemitated.

Follow link.

http://www.neo-tech.com/prosperity/quantum2.html

Raithere..
No I'm not a total folower of Ayn Rand's Objecitivist philosophy, however you must keep in mind tht when she wrote this, much of what we know of nature was unknown. Yet it would seem impossible for her to have known as much as we do know today.
…

Don't get me wrong… I find Rand's books excellent if a bit preachy. She also wins my "Best Book Title Ever" award with "Atlas Shrugged". I do think the Objectivist movement is important and has some valid points to it. The main problem with I have with it is the lack of compassion and the severity of action . In an ego dominated western society I find that this incredible focus on self is at the core of many, if not most, of our social problems. It is in this arena that I find Objectivism lacking. I also find the strictly mechanistic model of the Universe to be quite limiting and (as demonstrated by modern physics and mathematics) ultimately wrong. This, I agree, is due to her place in time… one might wonder what her philosophy would be in light of a chaotic and mysterious Universe.

Still I must say that statements such as "existence exists" are ultimately meaningless. Something exists or it does not… but to assume knowledge of the totality of existence is simply that… an assumption. She relies heavily upon this assumption in her philosophy... She disregards the unknown as if it were an unknown datum when history shows us that it is more likely to involve a paradigm shift of immense proportions and philosophical repercussions. What we label as the "Supernatural" is simply the unknown...

~Raithere

Can atheists get insurance for acts of God?Generally speaking, no. "Acts of God" are specifically excluded from most policies.

And that's not a joke. One of the problems I have with the insurance industry, after spending three years supporting it with my labors, is that a home insurance policy is a rip-off. Take a look at most policies. The #1 threat to your home is usually covered by the basic policy. The #2 or #3 threats are generally excluded, and must be purchased separately. Terrorism and "acts of God" have generally been excluded from basic policies because of their rarity.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

is there written exactly like that? "Acts of god' ?
lmao

originally said by Ekimklaw
Cris,

Of course, I personally believe that you made several errors in your reply to me. But responding at this stage would be repeating myself and a case of wheel-spinning. Therefore I will humbly bow out of this discussion with a courteous "Thank you", and leave the chips laying where they are. To coin a phrase, "we'll agree to disagree".

However, as usual, thanks for the lively debate. I think we both came out with our respective faiths intact.

And Cris, don't don't forget, we are attempting to convince the unconvinced, not vice versa.

Until next time...

-Mike


Happy to please you :)

is there written exactly like that? "Acts of god' ?I think so. I know it used to be. I stopped paying attention to the policy wordings because it only upset me to read the policy structures.

But it used to come at the end of a line of exclusions:

• ... policy excludes earthquakes, floods, violent storms, acts of war, and acts of God ...

As a side note, what I think it was for was inexplicable phenomena. For instance, there are problems with 9/11 insurance policies. An act of terror is legally separated from an act of war, so the insurance companies tried denying the claim. (And then the guy who held the WTC policies filed a possibly-fraudulent claim ....)

But imagine that you come home and find your house gone. It apparently happened during the night. The neighbors (say you have acreage) didn't hear anything, yadda-yadda-yadda. It's demonstrably not fire, demonstrably not an explosion, seismic readings don't show an earthquake, and weather stations show no evidence of a tornado. If it gets filed under "I have no idea what happened", it gets excluded according to an "act of God".

I would think that some companies would get rid of this wording, but at least two of my family's home policies had Act of God exclusions.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

The main problem with I have with it is the lack of compassion and the severity of action . In an ego dominated western society I find that this incredible focus on self is at the core of many, if not most, of our social problems.


No, it goes deeper than that. The problem is not that most of us are egocentric, it is that we are not egocentric ENOUGH, or that we don't know WHY we continue to be egocentric when all teachings state we should be otherwise. Ayn's characters are examples of "ideal men"... which means mostly, they don't exist.
They are TOO perfect. They expect equal value to be given for services rendered, and this doesn't happen outside of a marxist fairy tale (or, of course, a Randy :p one).

If you read Ayn Rand, she basically lays out all of the reasons why a COMPLETELY ego-driven society might be able to succeed. Unfortunately, the drawbacks are the same as with Marxist communism... as soon as you throw humans into the mix the theory becomes invalid. Even the characters in "atlass shrugged" RECOGNISE that while they have a service to render, something which they excel at, while being largely subordinate to the main characters who are the "prime movers", have a part to play and are HAPPY IN DOING SO, most people are not capable of this line of reasoning. Most humans will say "well, why can't I be a prime mover" and fail at excelling in what they do because they feel they deserve more, and should be rewarded BEYOND what they contribute.

Originally posted by Raithere
Still I must say that statements such as "existence exists" are ultimately meaningless. Something exists or it does not… but to assume knowledge of the totality of existence is simply that… an assumption. She relies heavily upon this assumption in her philosophy... She disregards the unknown as if it were an unknown datum when history shows us that it is more likely to involve a paradigm shift of immense proportions and philosophical repercussions. What we label as the "Supernatural" is simply the unknown...

~Raithere

Right on Raithere...playing around with defintions means that the person who does it denies the definition has any meaning in the first place.

Supernatural = beyond existence?

Utter crap.

Good one Raithere.

Squid Vicious

No, it goes deeper than that. The problem is not that most of us are egocentric, it is that we are not egocentric ENOUGH, or that we don't know WHY we continue to be egocentric when all teachings state we should be otherwise. Ayn's characters are examples of "ideal men"... which means mostly, they don't exist.
They are TOO perfect. They expect equal value to be given for services rendered, and this doesn't happen outside of a marxist fairy tale (or, of course, a Randy one).

I still don't agree with it. While I can accept some fundamentals of her philosophy as they pertain to the economics of a society I find it to be a perfectly horrid manner of dealing with people on a personal or emotional level. How can one expect equal value for compassion or love or the saving of one's life?

Ayn's philosophy smacks of Social Dawinism… and fails to address the fundamental truth that we are not always in control of what happens to us or our ability to contribute.

What if Galt was dealt a severe blow to the head and became amnesiac before he ever had a chance to put his wonderful invention to paper? What then is his contribution? Ayn's philosophy seems to be that he should be dumped on the side of the road to fend for himself.

If you read Ayn Rand, she basically lays out all of the reasons why a COMPLETELY ego-driven society might be able to succeed. Unfortunately, the drawbacks are the same as with Marxist communism... as soon as you throw humans into the mix the theory becomes invalid.

I agree but I find it even more fundamental than that. I think that she ignores our most basic drives in her philosophy. The "ideal men" of her world are takers, not givers. They only give when they will receive proper compensation. The true Atlases of the world are those who give freely. The human race endures because of compassion not accomplishment.

Even the characters in "atlass shrugged" RECOGNISE that while they have a service to render, something which they excel at, while being largely subordinate to the main characters who are the "prime movers", have a part to play and are HAPPY IN DOING SO, most people are not capable of this line of reasoning.

And in this I can agree. American society in particular engenders an almost pathological greed… the desire for more than one needs and an basic lack of contentment.

~Raithere

Rait,

The "ideal men" of her world are takers, not givers. They only give when they will receive proper compensation. The true Atlases of the world are those who give freely. The human race endures because of compassion not accomplishment.I think you may have a pre-conception of compensation that is erroneous in this context.

I can reason that if I want people to be compassionate to me, i.e. something of benefit to me, then I know that I will have to be compassionate to others. In this sense the ‘proper compensation’ is compassion, and the ‘price’ I have paid is to be compassionate as a starting point. The result is an objectively based compassionate society.

Your concept of a true Atlas is that of a pure altruist. I don’t believe such people exist or if so then they are extremely rare. I would suggest that everyone only does something if there is a personal benefit involved. For example take the person who anonymously donates to charity. This would on the surface appear as a pure altruistic action. But really such a person achieves a real benefit in terms of emotional pleasure, feelings, and satisfaction of having done something that is perceived as good.

So what do you mean for someone to give freely? I challenge you to show any example where someone gives freely without an expectation of some compensation.

Objectivism is a call to true honesty of why we choose certain actions.

Cris

Now here is one who claims to have an education. Probably out of a