"There's Probably No God...."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Omyo12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Omyo12

Guest
“…Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life”

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/...-GB/there_s_no_god_so_stop_worrying_large.jpg

I’m sure we’ve all heard of this bus campaign in the UK in response to evangelical Christian bus campaigns condemning non-Christians to hell.

Now, I personally do not agree with the evangelical ads either…

In any case, some of my Christian friends were saying that this is a sign of things getting worse. That this atheistic philosophy has reached new levels. That they are appealing to our material ways; something that’s never happened before… I’m inclined to disagree on this.

Now, I agree that there seems to be a growing “New Atheist” movement. However, their reasoning really isn’t anything “new”… (It seems to just be human egoism)

For example, surely we all agree that enjoying life is a good thing. However, the way some atheists appeal:
“Just enjoy your life, once it’s gone, it’s gone!”

This argument really reminds me of…
**The Book of Wisdom
Click to expand...
Chapter 2**
1 For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: 2 For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, 3 Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: 4 And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. 5 For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth.
6 Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. 7 Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. 8 Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. 9 Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, just sharing some thoughts.

Also, by no means do I intend to group every atheist as agreeing with the “New Atheist” movement. For example, the British philosopher Julian Baggini who is an atheist himself is against the “New Atheist” movement calling it* “arrogant, and attributes to reason a power it does not have.”*
 
This article from one of the most prominent atheistic-evolutionists in the U.S. answers the question “why are atheists so disliked” fairly well itself. Biology professor P.Z. Myers teaches that evolution is without purpose and therefore, there is no moral law:

We do not have evidence for purpose in evolution, and if anything, all the evidence is against the idea that evolution has a direction or that natural selection can be anything but an unguided response to local conditions.

… First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; **you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest **(it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.

evolutionnews.org/2009/09/on_atheism_and_morality_a_repl.html

So, evolutionary theorists like P.Z. Myers teach that atheism is amoral. A person could go on a “murder spree” if it contributes to one’s “self-interest”. Evolution does not command or forbid any human behavior.

That is all logical and consistent with evolutionary theory and with the atheism based on it. We can see this clearly from the words of this prominent atheism himself.

So, materialist-evolutionary-atheism (the most common variety of atheistic thought) is very dangerous in itself. One does not need to claim that atheists are “satan worshippers” to realize how destructive and evil this philosophy is. A plain reading of atheism, as given by P.Z. Myers leads to the conclusion that nothing can be condemned or forbidden from an evolutionary perspective – and anything is fully justified as supporting “one’s self-interest”.
 
reggieM said:
This article from one of the most prominent atheistic-evolutionists in the U.S. answers the question “why are atheists so disliked” fairly well itself. Biology professor P.Z. Myers teaches that evolution is without purpose and therefore, there is no moral law:

We do not have evidence for purpose in evolution, and if anything, all the evidence is against the idea that evolution has a direction or that natural selection can be anything but an unguided response to local conditions.

… First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; **you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest **(it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.

evolutionnews.org/2009/09/on_atheism_and_morality_a_repl.html

So, evolutionary theorists like P.Z. Myers teach that atheism is amoral. A person could go on a “murder spree” if it contributes to one’s “self-interest”. Evolution does not command or forbid any human behavior.

That is all logical and consistent with evolutionary theory and with the atheism based on it. We can see this clearly from the words of this prominent atheism himself.

So, materialist-evolutionary-atheism (the most common variety of atheistic thought) is very dangerous in itself. One does not need to claim that atheists are “satan worshippers” to realize how destructive and evil this philosophy is. A plain reading of atheism, as given by P.Z. Myers leads to the conclusion that nothing can be condemned or forbidden from an evolutionary perspective – and anything is fully justified as supporting “one’s self-interest”.
Click to expand...
So are you just going to re-post that in every thread now? I already said I disagree with your interpretation of his words in another thread.
 
liquidpele said:
So are you just going to re-post that in every thread now? I already said I disagree with your interpretation of his words in another thread.
Click to expand...
It seems like you’re just repeating yourself and not adding any additional information except to say “you disagree”.
If that’s your only argument, then I think the point stands.
Additionally, if that’s all you can say about it, perhaps some other atheists will have better arguments than what you’ve provided.
If not, then this is quite conclusive and should definitely be re-posted on every atheistic thread on CAF (that would save a lot of obscurantist dialogue).
 
reggieM said:
It seems like you’re just repeating yourself and not adding any additional information except to say “you disagree”.
If that’s your only argument, then I think the point stands.
Additionally, if that’s all you can say about it, perhaps some other atheists will have better arguments than what you’ve provided.
If not, then this is quite conclusive and should definitely be re-posted on every atheistic thread on CAF (that would save a lot of obscurantist dialogue).
Click to expand...
Of course that’s my argument. We’re discussing the words of another person… you want like physical proof or something?? All I can give is my opinion that his words meant something besides how you interpreted them, and since I think you are wrong I spoke up.

You’re implying that his words mean that evolution and atheism mean we could go on murder sprees. What I think he was saying was that the reason we* don’t* go on murder sprees is simply for reasons other than God and have to do with the items he briefly touched on.
 
liquidpele said:
but are to let atheists know that they aren’t alone
Click to expand...
Did they really need an add for that?:rolleyes: They must be really low in numbers.
liquidpele said:
and to let others know that atheists aren’t some devil worshipping nazi group.
Click to expand...
When you got somebody like Richard Dawkins calling you a lunatic or delusional for placing ones hope in the positive belief that we exist for an objective purpose and that we have a value and a meaning, the whole devil worshiping thing is an easy mistake to make.:rolleyes: 😉

As for hell, a sensitive atheist is bound to see it as a threat rather then a positive warning.
 
liquidpele said:
Of course that’s my argument. We’re discussing the words of another person… you want like physical proof or something?? All I can give is my opinion that his words meant something besides how you interpreted them, and since I think you are wrong I spoke up.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is fine with me – I mean, it is what it is. But I wasn’t reposting this for you to repeat that, but with the hope that someone else would comment.

As for how to go beyond just giving your opinion on a person’s words – we would do that by looking at the logic and implications of evolutionary theory, the meaning of “moral law” and the motives for human behavior – and then tie those all together. When Myers did it, he concluded with what he said – the only reason we don’t go on shooting-sprees is for “self-interest”. But as I said, and you didn’t disagree, this justifies shooting-sprees when a person thinks it is in their self-interest.

We also know that people do go on shooting-sprees, so it’s wrong to claim that we don’t do that.
You’re implying that his words mean that evolution and atheism mean we could go on murder sprees. What I think he was saying was that the reason we* don’t* go on murder sprees is simply for reasons other than God and have to do with the items he briefly touched on.
Click to expand...
He stated clearly that evolution has no purpose or direction and no moral law. You now object to the idea that “we could go on murder sprees”. But that is what is meant by having no moral law and no purpose. Additionally, he said that the only reason we don’t go on murder sprees is due to our self-interest. Clearly and logically then, if that’s the only reason – then whenever it is in our self-interest to go on a murder-spree, then we “could do it”. Where is the moral law that says we cannot? Myers explicitly stated that it does not exist.

Again, I don’t see how your opinion can be supported by the actual words that Myers wrote. As I said before, the fact that you feel you have to re-interpret what he said, using totally different words and concepts, means that you can clearly see the problem in his ideas. You’re trying to cover it up or downplay what he said by re-writing it.

To me, that indicates that you’ve got more common sense and good sense than Myers does. But the fact that you’re trying to defend him is still a major problem as I see it.
 
Omyo12 said:
“…Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life”

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/...-GB/there_s_no_god_so_stop_worrying_large.jpg

I’m sure we’ve all heard of this bus campaign in the UK in response to evangelical Christian bus campaigns condemning non-Christians to hell.

Now, I personally do not agree with the evangelical ads either…

In any case, some of my Christian friends were saying that this is a sign of things getting worse. That this atheistic philosophy has reached new levels. That they are appealing to our material ways; something that’s never happened before… I’m inclined to disagree on this.

Now, I agree that there seems to be a growing “New Atheist” movement. However, their reasoning really isn’t anything “new”… (It seems to just be human egoism)

For example, surely we all agree that enjoying life is a good thing. However, the way some atheists appeal:
“Just enjoy your life, once it’s gone, it’s gone!”

This argument really reminds me of…

I don’t know, just sharing some thoughts.

Also, by no means do I intend to group every atheist as agreeing with the “New Atheist” movement. For example, the British philosopher Julian Baggini who is an atheist himself is against the “New Atheist” movement calling it* “arrogant, and attributes to reason a power it does not have.”*
Click to expand...
hedonism is the real reason for most atheism, be it physical or intellectual, but its a very old philosophy that never lasts because it is empty. pleasure of all kind fades, eventually it isnt really fun any more to drink, smoke, have sex. these things all go away eventually. as the old saying says, the path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. been there, done that. if they are going to just plain out say the core of their philosophy, i expect that they wont make it more than a generation. hedonists never do. they pretty much gaurunteed the Christain groups in europe all the ammo they need.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Did they really need an add for that?:rolleyes: They must be really low in numbers.

When you got somebody like Richard Dawkins calling you a lunatic or delusional for placing ones hope in the positive belief that we exist for an objective purpose and that we have a value and a meaning, the whole devil worshiping thing is an easy mistake to make.:rolleyes: 😉

As for hell, a sensitive atheist is bound to see it as a threat rather then a positive warning.
Click to expand...
I don’t personally feel that ads were needed, but why not? The same buses has religious advertising on them before, so you can apply your same snippy comments to Christianity too.

Right, an outspoken scientist clearly equals demonic worship. You must be the reincarnation of McCarthy.

An atheist likely does see hell as a threat, I’ll agree with that. If I came up to you and told you that you had to worship a magic goat or else you would burn forever in fire, would you not view that as a threat even if you found it silly?
 
liquidpele said:
I don’t personally feel that ads were needed, but why not? The same buses has religious advertising on them before, so you can apply your same snippy comments to Christianity too.
Click to expand...
Well, people in general exchange debate in the public forum any way. However saying that there is no God has no real positivity whatsoever in terms of life and death and dealing with the day to day reality of being, and in fact only reflects the desires of those whom have the resources they need to make life tolerable. They are some who are not willing to sacrifice their will for the greater good of God, and are instead willing to live without God and are prepared to tolerate the meaninglessness, moral redundancy and the absence of purpose which necessarily follows from their denial; for the sake of self glory, self power, and sexual gratification. In other words they will it to be the case that they are their own Gods. They think that fulfillment lies in these ideas.

The Christians says that these things are imperfect as they do not lead by themselves to perfect happiness and fulfillment and that they are for this very reason the true root of all evil that exists in the world, and that hell is a necessary consequence (not a spiteful act on the part of God). The Christian is trying to help in a different way. The difference being is that you will have an objective identity, objective purpose, objective good, and an objective meaning that ultimately leads to eternal and perfect happiness. All that one has to do is sacrifice his own selfish wants for the greater good which is the salvation of the human race and their ascent to Gods kingdom. But this would mean sacrificing ones own personal kingdom of sex, power, lust and self gratification for a greater good that doesn’t allow one to think only of the self, but rather of the fulfillment of all human beings according to Gods plan. In Dawkins case, allot of children perceive church life as being boring, and thus do not perceive the greater good behind it, and thus for one reason or other, some of them grow up to be like Richard; oblivious to God.

You could say that Christians have made up an extravagant fantasy in order to deal with life according to their desires; but you cannot deny that some if not all conscious atheists have motives behind their descent which are more reflective of desire rather then rational arguement. The root motivation is desire, even if any of their arguments stand to reason.
liquidpele said:
Right, an outspoken scientist clearly equals demonic worship. You must be the reincarnation of McCarthy.
Click to expand...
I am.:mad:
liquidpele said:
An atheist likely does see hell as a threat, I’ll agree with that. If I came up to you and told you that you had to worship a magic goat or else you would burn forever in fire, would you not view that as a threat even if you found it silly?
Click to expand...
Well hell is a necessary consequence of Gods nature, and logical arguments convince me of this. Plus, my experiences tend to give me the impression that there is such a thing as right and wrong, especially when i feel guilt and shame and other meaningful emotions that i come to experience as i struggle my way through life while interacting with other human beings. Also, many of the arguments for Gods existence including many scientific discoveries such as the big bang convinces me that God is the most probable if not necessary explanation of reality. Also reality in general is so amazing and bizarre that it really would not surprise me if there was a transcendent all powerful and perfect God behind its actuality. This idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is to me answered by the fact of existence as we experience it. Take the laws of physics for example. I can understand why I as a person would follow an order or a command or a law, but it seems absolutely arbitrary to me that there are inert physical objects in existence that behave in specific ways and act towards specific ends that are meaningful and generative of life. Why? It certainly reminds me of how a computer programmer designs programs to behave in a particular and constant manner. The world is very particular. For instance, you need a brain to think, lungs to breath, ears to hear, eyes to see, muscles to move. Everything is very meaningful because they are ordered to meaningful and purposeful ends. There is so much functionality in life that it is very hard for me not to think that it was initially programmed to be that way. Why do i see beauty or even ugliness? Why do i appreciate or desire something? What am i that i should be mindful of myself? Its as if the world was prepared to be experienced. The world seems to be designed for a purpose, and the world around me influences me to think that it is. The idea that it just exists that way for no reason or just popped out of nothing, is very unsatisfactory in terms of a rational explanation and neither does it explain the meaningful experience of being a person. To be honest, such explanations seem to be developed for no reason other then to avoid God as an explanation. Brute facts are simply unwarranted when there are other possible explanations such as a transcendent mind.

A transcendent personal being would certainly make sense of my being a person. But a Magic Goat…there is nothing about that concept itself that makes sense of my experiences. People that try to make these kinds of comparisons do not encourage me to think of them as reflective people.

Peace.
 
liquidpele said:
Yea, we should totally make them wear burkas.
Click to expand...
they exposed the real reason for atheism, hedonism, not exactly something respectable to any one but teenagers. they hurt their own cause, exposing its true roots, hedonism. the path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom, this public atheism wont last any longer for most women, than the first child, and it wont last for men longer than their forties. id be happy to associate atheism with hedonism all day long, it guaruntees the death of the philosophy among all but the hard core atheists, the intelligencia for whom atheism is some illusory form of intellectual freedom. even that dies, ala anthony flew. pride is a weak place to stand in the face of a death you cannot avoid.
 
Omyo12 said:
“…Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life”

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/...-GB/there_s_no_god_so_stop_worrying_large.jpg
Click to expand...
It concerns me that so many of you saw this picture and immediately saw “sex objectification of women.” The picture shows an attractive woman and Richard Dawkins but it does not show “sex objectification of women.” This must be something that you have brought along with you since it is nowhere in the picture. And then you go and project this thinking on atheists! Someone even suggested that atheism is all about hedonism as if the only thing that prevents him from degenerating into a hedonist lifestyle is his religion. This may be true of you, but I for one go to work, take care of my family, exercise, eat right, am sexually monogamous etc. without any religious beliefs. You should really stop projecting your moral shortcomings on others and condeming them for it. This sort of scape-goating is exactly what got Jesus crucified. If Jesus died for anyone sins, this is the sin he died for.

Best,
Leela
 
Leela said:
It concerns me that so many of you saw this picture and immediately saw “sex objectification of women.”
Click to expand...
This is not atypical of historical Catholic thought. For example, from here:

The most shocking contribution in this book was Daniel Sullivan’s history of Catholic thinking about women, marriage, love and sexuality. This thinking, wrote Sullivan, has been based, in part, on the views expressed by some of the most eminent fathers and doctors of the church: of St. Jerome, that a woman is ‘the devil’s gateway, a dangerous species, a scorpion’s dart.’ Of St. John Damascene that she is a ‘sicked she-***, a hideous tapeworm, the advanced post of hell.’ Of St. Clement of Alexandria that it ‘is shameful for her to think about nature she has.’ Of St. Francis de Sales that married couples should not think about the act they might have to perform at night. Of St. Thomas Aquinas that ‘woman is misbegotten and defective.’ Of Pope St. Gregory the Great the woman’s ‘use’ is twofold: harlotry or maternity.
 
Just_Lurking said:
This is not atypical of historical Catholic thought. For example, from here:

The most shocking contribution in this book was Daniel Sullivan’s history of Catholic thinking about women, marriage, love and sexuality. This thinking, wrote Sullivan, has been based, in part, on the views expressed by some of the most eminent fathers and doctors of the church: of St. Jerome, that a woman is ‘the devil’s gateway, a dangerous species, a scorpion’s dart.’ Of St. John Damascene that she is a ‘sicked she-***, a hideous tapeworm, the advanced post of hell.’ Of St. Clement of Alexandria that it ‘is shameful for her to think about nature she has.’ Of St. Francis de Sales that married couples should not think about the act they might have to perform at night. Of St. Thomas Aquinas that ‘woman is misbegotten and defective.’ Of Pope St. Gregory the Great the woman’s ‘use’ is twofold: harlotry or maternity.
Click to expand...
Still, in this day and age, I was shocked at how many Catholics saw the picture of an attractive woman in a t-shirt and immediately thought “sex object.”

Perhaps some people really do need religion to be moral. But why do such people have to project their moral shortcomings and difficulty suppressing their desire to sin on others who don’t need religion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top