Posted on 05/07/2003 at 07:04 AM
Dude, I need to read your ‘recently commented’ area more. This is hysterical—you really get the loons popping up on all sorts of things!
[sniff] No one loves me, in comparison. 
Les, what the hell happened here? Did you show up as a target over on FreeRepublic, or something? Geez. What a bunch of morons who haven’t the faintest idea what America is really about.
These folks truly remind me of Germans during Hitler’s reign. We’re at the end of the Weimar Republic, if this is the real tone of the country.
Next step, Der Fuhrer. After that, I’m really worried. Fortunately, most of those folks seem to have disappeared?
Posted on 05/07/2003 at 06:25 AM
Porn makes the world go round.
I watch porn all the time.
Posted on 05/07/2003 at 06:23 AM
Great man.
I like a lot of porn spam in my e-mail.
Just mail me if you are not a coward.
mail to:
I am not afraid of porn or any dirty stuff
Posted on 05/07/2003 at 02:13 AM
OK Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911!DUH!
There are worse leaders out there and people more wanting of liberation than Iraq.
Iraq was NEVER a threat to America!
I have an idea! Lets kill everyone who speaks thier mind. Then we will make Bush emperor
(because ya’ll think he is all knowing anyway).Then we will illegally take over other nations for our own gain (we have to pay for all the rich people’s tax cuts anyway). You republican morons actully believe all the crap you are being spoon fed by the government?
screw your war!
Posted on 05/07/2003 at 01:32 AM
Hey Les,
I am an idiot who has been brainwashed.I believe in fairy tails meant to scare me into being a good little boy, do what I’m told without question and give my money and control of my mind to some child molester! I have also been instructed to try to convert people like you, who think for themselves. If I don’t convert people, the church will make me feel guilty for allowing them to burn in a pretend hell! Of course we are not going to mention, the more idiots in the pew, the more money on the plate! Don’t you know that the bible is the true word of God! But you can’t take certain parts literaly!
Eric..Justin do you see how you sound?
I shutter to think about Ghandi and other non- christian wonderful, holy people burning in some inferno somewhere!
Posted on 05/07/2003 at 12:16 AM
Hey ventricleman, Quit being an ass pony!
whats is all this crap about infinity,universal contemplation blah..blah..blah..
Are you a fence post worshiper or not?
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 11:53 PM
Yeah! I agree with you 100%! I haven’t actually experienced a book banning problem at my school just yet but still… These people need to LEARN and READ the books, not just read the summaries and say,"Oh, let’s ban this book!” I guess they never heard of the classic saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover”.
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 11:26 PM
I have seen shows such as jackass before. I’m 13, and find the shopping cart stunts quite entertaining, and fun to watch, and participate in. I also think that some of the skateboard stunts are pretty cool. What I find hard to understand here is that a 15 year old retard tried to basically fry himself in gasoline. Does it take that much thinking to realize that doing this will result in people like us thinking of him as a complete faggot for the rest of his life? What a little crap.
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 09:27 PM
I see you have returned to once again not engage in anything resembling a debate.
Here, i decided not to read your paradoxal whatnot because my eyes were tired and my brain hurt. I’m somewhat bored with it anyway.
Not surprising. Pretty much the reaction I’ve come to expect from you.
Let’s just dive into what i want to argue about anyway.
It seems to me we’ve been doing that all along as you have consistently ignored points made, questions asked, and otherwise brushed away anything you haven’t wanted to try and discuss.
You continue with that trend with this response here by declaring that you are “bored” with the first two-thirds of my latest response that you can’t begin to fathom how to refute. Then you focus on a single response to a single point I made by claiming that I explained Evolution in a manner that I have never expressed in our conversation so far in a near-perfect example of the Straw Man logical fallacy.
Your arguments are overly simplistic and the reasoning behind them is suspect at best and spurious at worst. The time I have invested in pursuing this with you has moved beyond the point of diminishing returns despite the amusement I have gotten from some of your attempts at making a point. Until you’ve taken the time to address the multitude of points and questions already posed to you in previous responses I’ll be off pursuing other activities.
There’s an awful lot of stupid people to make fun of out there, I can’t waste all of my time on just one person. They might start to feel like I don’t love them.
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 09:08 PM
Yeah, baby!
The first film is still my all-time favorite movie. It had everything, and I do mean everything I like in a film.
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 08:52 PM
Here, i decided not to read your paradoxal whatnot because my eyes were tired and my brain hurt. I’m somewhat bored with it anyway.
Let’s just dive into what i want to argue about anyway.
Why can we contemplate it (infinity)?
Why shouldn’t we be able to contemplate it? What about the nature of reality makes you think that the ability for some creatures to contemplate an abstract idea must in some way make that abstract into a part of reality?
How did evolution allow us to?
Once again you seem to be implying that evolution is some sort of self-aware, decision-making force that grants us abilities to do things. It’s just a description of a natural process, it doesn’t allow or disallow any particular creature to do any particular thing.
I am in no way implying that evolution is some sort of self aware being. In fact, my point was the exact opposite of that. Evolution, as you explained it, is a mathematical process of substraction that forms the most efficent system of atoms in the environment around it. Now, humans apparently came out of Africa, and went to places abroad. Humans ate veggies and meat and protected themselves and their children. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW UNIVERSAL CONTEMPLATION WOULD FIT INTO HUMAN EVOLUTION. To me, if you put this into the evolution “equation”, it sounds to me like its extra baggage. and evolution has absolutely NO ROOM for extra baggage. Now, what could “give” the human race the extra baggage? The only answer i can come up with is god.
a tout a l’heure
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 06:52 PM
Thank you for being a dumbass and spamming my comments with an ad for your cyber-begging website. I have taken the liberty of editing your comment to indicate what a dumbass you are and change the URL you’ve left to point to a more worthwhile charity such as the American Cancer Society. Have a wonderful day.
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 06:47 PM
here- i made a rather legnthly post and your silly website decided not to put it on. maybe you have...never mind.
Network connections can be unpredictable. For lengthy responses such as I’ve made here I do my work in a separate editor just in case of such a glitch. I’ve had enough experiences in the past to realize the prudence in such a precaution.
my hands are tired so ill only argue one thing that came up in reading your rather demeaning comment.
Demeaning? But I have only the greatest respect for you. I do try to inject a little humor into my lengthy replies for those outside of the conversation who are reading it. The best humor often involves a straight-man.
Though I must say that this is easily your best attempt at putting forth a reasonable argument so far. Let’s see what kind of damage we can do with it.
Infinity must exist. If it didn’t, then what would be beyond your cosmological whatnot? Nothing? God? I am in serious confusion in finding a way to contemplate a non-infinite universe.
Your confusion doesn’t rule out the possibility that a finite universe could exist. Many universal models are both finite and without boundary due to the curvature of space-time. In such a model there isn’t anything “beyond” the universe because there isn’t anything except for the universe. For there to be something outside of the universe in such a model the universe would have to exist within the confines of some other thing. So to ask what is “beyond the universe” with regards to a finite and boundary-less model is a meaningless question.
Part of the problem is with the word “Infinity,” which has it’s roots in mathematics. As a concept it is inherently self-contradictory. So too the nature of existence itself is a paradox that can’t be explained without developing further paradoxes. One of the better arguments about this very subject that I’ve come across can be found at Physics Post.com:
- To declare something is infinite is to assert that it has no limits. However, this presents a paradox because the statement contradicts itself. Specifically, it imposes the limit on itself that there are no limits. Because of this irrational self-contradictory and self-referential statement we can interpret infinities and paradoxes any way we choose and none can prove us wrong. We can accept them at face value as apparently irrational and inexplicable, deny they are irrational, or simply ignore them.
This inability to clearly express the infinite and paradoxical rationally has not prevented people around the globe from using the terms for everything from casual everyday use to elaborate engineering designs and obscure theological debates. Infinity, for example, is central to the Calculus, which has revolutionized modern science. Thus, paradoxes and infinities are not so easily ignored as meaningless, trivial, or useless.
For all these reasons and more, existence presents the astonishing likelihood that at least one ineffable paradox is actually real and is not merely the result of our ignorance, lack of insight, or imagination. Whether invoking the concepts of eternity, Oneness, or the supernatural each new explanation put forward for the origin of existence has ended in paradox. For something to be eternal, God-like, or all encompassing invokes logically impenetrable paradox. If God or eternity really can explain existence, then where did they come from? Rational explanations to this puzzle of ultimate origins are patently impossible by the very definition of logic if, indeed, existence truly is a paradox, as it certainly appears to be.
Now, there is no doubt that when people use the word infinity they are usually referring to something so vast it may be impossible to measure. Even so, like countless reflections in a house of mirrors, with infinity you can never be quite certain if what you are looking at is real or just an illusory reflection. Whichever way you turn looks the same and where exactly we might be within the maze of reflections, much less if there is a way out of the maze, cannot be determined just by looking around. William Blake expressed the somehow comprehensible and, yet, incomprehensible nature of infinity in his popular poem, “Auguries of Innocence”:
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wildflower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour
In an actual house of mirrors we can walk right up to the nearest image and touch it to see if it is an actual object or just another reflection and, using this hands on method, we can find our way out of the maze. But this direct approach is not possible in the case of infinity. To date no one has ever proven any kind of infinity actually exists in the real world much less that the concept is rational. Everything science has investigated to date has proven to either be rational and finite or presumably irrational.
Among the many ramifications of this base ignorance is nothing less than the foundations of logic, the sciences, and physical reality itself. The paradox of existence has proven impossible for all rational investigations attempted thus far for obvious reasons. Therefore, a more pragmatic approach is to assume it is utterly impenetrable to reason until proven otherwise, and then move on to determine how best to how to use paradoxes like any other handy and ubiquitous tool.
The article is a good read and I recommend it to anyone up for a little deep thinking on the topic. The point being that when discussing concepts such as infinity and the nature of existence you run into limits as to how far logic can take you. Infinity is certainly a possibility, but it’s not a logical certainty.
In being here, we autmatically support infinity because we can contemplate it.
We can contemplate a lot of things that might exist, but that doesn’t mean they do exist. Earlier I suggested the possibility that all life on this planet is the result of a release of flatulence from a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue. Does the fact that I can contemplate the the idea that something which can be described as a “hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue with life-producing flatulence” mean that it MUST exist simply because I can conceive such a thing in my head?
It’s possible that SOMEPLACE in the universe there exists Big Fluffy Pink Unicorns, but that isn’t proof they exist. It’s just proof that I have a good imagination.
Why can we contemplate it?
Why shouldn’t we be able to contemplate it? What about the nature of reality makes you think that the ability for some creatures to contemplate an abstract idea must in some way make that abstract into a part of reality?
How did evolution allow us to?
Once again you seem to be implying that evolution is some sort of self-aware, decision-making force that grants us abilities to do things. It’s just a description of a natural process, it doesn’t allow or disallow any particular creature to do any particular thing.
Why aren’t we still robots like the animals that are only concerned with sex and food?
Most animals I’ve interacted with a far from being robotic. Just in my limited experience with house cats I’ve been able to observe differences in preferences and behaviors that count as at least rudimentary personalities. The differences between man and animal may only be a matter of the comparative processing power of our brains.
If this is a flaw, then what caused it? I think that will be enough to argue against for now.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the ability to comprehend or consider abstract and self-contradictory concepts such as infinity is some sort of flaw. Side effect of higher brain functions? Perhaps, but not a flaw.
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 05:38 PM
Hey, if you think SaveKaryn.com is sad, you should see my website. But if you don’t want too—don’t look! 
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 04:57 PM
here- i made a rather legnthly post and your silly website decided not to put it on. maybe you have...never mind.
my hands are tired so ill only argue one thing that came up in reading your rather demeaning comment.
What basis do you have for declaring that infinity MUST exist? You state this as if it were fact, which it is not. Current cosmological theories do suggest that it’s a good possibility that infinity does exist, but that’s not the same as saying that it MUST exist.
Infinity must exist. If it didn’t, then what would be beyond your cosmological whatnot? Nothing? God? I am in serious confusion in finding a way to contemplate a non-infinite universe. In being here, we autmatically support infinity because we can contemplate it. Why can we contemplate it? How did evolution allow us to? Why aren’t we still robots like the animals that are only concerned with sex and food? If this is a flaw, then what caused it? I think that will be enough to argue against for now.
a tout a l’heure
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 03:14 PM
allrighty then. i assume, even though you have made several attempts to demean me as a person, that you want to debate. Well then, lets debate
What the hell have we been doing for the last three or four comments? Slow dancing? I’m sorry, I thought you had come here to debate the issues, but it appears here you are admitting to having little more intention than to act as a comment troll. It’s good to see you’ve caught up to the rest of us.
If a quibble over definitions is what you want to call it, be my guest. I think otherwise.
Obviously your claim that you are now going to engage in “debate” is patently not true. Unless, of course, you are once again working with your own custom version of the definition of the word “debate” that the rest of us are not privy to.
I asked you to address the fact that your statements appear to indicate that you value emotion over reason as the better method of making important judgments. Rather than address the question raised you decided to make a flippant comment about whether or not differences of opinion on the meaning of “gut instinct” is a quibble over definitions.
I have my own fondness for glib comments, but if you’re not going to address the points and questions raised against you then you are not engaging in debate. At least not by the definition that the rest of us use for the word.
By this, I assume that you have placed religions in a sort of...pecking order, Satanists and Wiccans being at the bottom.
I completely fail to understand how you could draw that conclusion from my statement and your assumption in that regard would be wrong. If anything, I value Wiccans above most religious groups because I feel they have the most tolerant approach to differing opinions and other religions. I would love to see an increase in the Wiccan religion in the United States. If people have to believe in something then I’d be happier if it were a more tolerant religious viewpoint such as Wicca.
If thats what people want to be, thats fine. I have absolutely no problem with the Wiccans--they dont do anything immoral and have a lovely outlook on life. The Satanists...well theyre satanists. Thats fine. Also,I have no problem with Buddhists. They believe in the mind and its immense power.
Finally we’re getting someplace in this discussion. Good to see you’re tolerant of other religious viewpoints and I’m pleased to see you do not cling to traditional Christian dogma that would not accept such wildly differing religious outlooks. There may be some hope for you yet.
I think that they have some validity--we only use 10% of our brains (i doubt there are ANY evolutionary explanations for that, but im sure youll come up with something to refute me)
You’re absolutely 100% right that there aren’t ANY evolutionary explanations for that. (GASP!!) Mainly because it’s simply a myth.
The we-only-use-10%-of-our-brain myth has been around a long time and your reliance on it shows a stunning ignorance of neurological science. It’s a favorite quote of the psychic-powers-are-real crowd as it implies that if humans could tap into the remaining unused 90% of their brains they could move mountains, which is patently untrue.
It would be more appropriate to say that humans only use 10% of their brains for walking around and smelling things as that’s a rough percentage of how much of the brain appears to be devoted to motor control and other related functions. There is more to being human, however, than simply moving around. The fact that such a minor amount of the brain is used for the task of moving us about and collecting data means that the rest of the brain is free to do all the stuff that’s needed to allow a self-aware consciousness to form.
Whales, for example, have much larger brains than humans, but the also have much bigger bodies with a greater number of muscles and the such to control. More of their brains are devoted to simply moving about and that leaves less for functions that would be used to form a high level of intelligence. This is why whales aren’t on the same intellectual level as humans despite the fact that they have brains that are bigger than ours.
Still, don’t take my word for it. Go visit any lab with a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner or a functional magnetic resonance image scanner (fMRI) and see for yourself. It should be obvious even to you after looking at a few scans that while many simple activities only use small bits of the brain to accomplish them there are plenty of more complex actions that use a majority of the brain’s capabilities. It would be more appropriate to say that humans don’t use all of their brain all of the time, but the idea that 90% of the brain is dormant and unused is easy enough to disprove with only a minimal amount of research. I suggest picking up a copy of Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain if you really want to learn more. Not that I’m assuming you do, but I’m trying to be optimistic about you.
and i think that all humans have a psychic connection with their ancestors and whatnot. (if you want more, ask)
I think this says enough already. I make fun of psychics here on my website as well, by the way. That should be enough to let you know my “feelings” on that particular bit of mumbo-jumbo.
What I do have a problem with is people having no religion. There are many types of atheists, as I have come to understand.
We’ve established you have a problem with people who don’t have a religion. What we want to know is why.
At least you’ll be happy to know that most atheists would agree with you that there are all kinds of atheists.
There are the depressed--something bad happened and they blame god for it, but he doesnt answer, and out comes ANOTHER mini series.
I don’t recall seeing very many mini-series based on the stories of depressed atheists. Most of the mini-series I’ve seen produced involve uplifting stories of people who’s faith falters, but ends up being reaffirmed by the end of the story. Depressing stories such as you suggest don’t tend to sell well with the TV exec crowd. They want happy endings.
I will concede the idea that some atheists are former believers who have lost their faith after something bad happened to them. How depressed they are is debatable and they certainly aren’t getting mini-series made about them. Not on the cable system I have at least.
There are the rebellious--mostly catholics that are annoyed with their religion and just want a break.
Do these really count as atheists? Certainly there are people, teens mostly, who claim to be atheists as a means of rebellion and to shock the authority figures in their lives without really meaning it, but is that really a form of atheism?
There are science teachers--they have boring days and read wayyyy too much and find that “evolution” explains all their problems.
All science teachers are bored? I’ll have to contact my old high school science teacher and ask.
How, pray tell, does “evolution” solve all of their problems? This is a question I’d really love to hear an answer to. I can’t think of any problems in my life that have been solved by my understanding of the theory of evolution. It certainly didn’t help when my car decided not to start or when I needed to hang a picture on drywall. OK, I’ll admit it does help a bit when combating the common cold and cleaning the house, but to say it solves “all” of my problems, or those of science teachers, is a bit ridiculous.
Reading too much is bad? I suppose I can agree with that with the conditional statement that it really depends on what you’re reading too much of.
I have found that most science teachers are agnostic, though, not atheist.
Agnosticism is considered by many as a “weak” form of atheism, but atheism just the same. My science teachers in school were Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian and Jewish. Suppose they must have been the exceptions to the rule, eh?
I can understand agnosticism, though I believe that it is the stupidest religion because they dont KNOW anything. (if you want more, ask)
They know enough to be honest and admit that they don’t have enough information to make a decision one way or the other. Can I infer by your statement that you think people who are honest and admit they just don’t know are, in your mind, stupid?
By definition agnosticism isn’t a religion, it’s just a religious viewpoint. Same as atheism.
And of course, there are the true atheists---like you who run websites like this one and dont REALLY know why other than to make fun of people.
Awfully arrogant of you to presume that I “don’t really know WHY” I do the things I do. How can you be so certain that I haven’t a clue?
I run this website because I have something to say to whomever cares to listen and I can’t afford my own television show or to publish my own book. At least not yet. (May your God(s) help you if I ever can.) I also know WHY I don’t believe in the concept of God or Gods or other supernatural beings out to dominate the universe.
And, yes, part of why I run this website is to make fun of stupid people. After all, everyone should have a hobby.
You sound depressed to me. I think you might want some psychiatric help. Seriously.
I would suppose that would depend on your definition of the word “depressed.” Most folks who use the common definition found in dictionaries would say I’m far from being depressed. There are people who know me in real life who read this blog and they’d probably tell you that I’m a very upbeat and happy individual who is generally liked by most folks I deal with on a day-to-day basis.
Funny you should suggest that I seek psychiatric help as I was thinking the very same thing about you, only not because I thought you were depressed.
Anyway, Im sure you want to know WHY i dislike atheism.
Indeed. If nothing else it should be amusing if not enlightening.
I think its stupid.
Yes, we’ve been over that. I believe that I expressed the same opinion about religion. New information would be helpful.
It doesnt give any explanation to WHY we are here at all. How? Why?
And now you know why atheism is a philosophical stance and not a religion. Atheism doesn’t provide an explanation about why or how we’re here because it has none of the trappings of religion. All being an “atheist” means is that the person in question has an absence of belief in the existence of a God or Gods.
That is the only literal conclusion you can draw about someone who claims to be an atheist without any further explanation on their part. Specifics about other beliefs or their opinions on matters such as the how and why of our existence will vary from atheist to atheist as will their personal sense of morality. There are atheists who do not accept the theory of evolution as a truth and there are atheists who believe psychic powers are not only possible, but possessed by some individuals.
Certainly there are trends among atheists in that many do accept the theory of evolution and that many don’t believe in psychic abilities, but there’s nothing about being an atheist that dictates all atheists must hold those ideas as sacrosanct.
Im sure that you would probably say--there is no point to life.
No, I would say that the point of life is whatever you decide it should be. Works for me.
I will not go any farther because my points will incite suicide. And thats bad.
Only among people who have become overwhelmed at the futility of finding a reasonable argument in your statements. I can assure you that there is little you could say that would incite me to commit suicide.
Unless you mean suicide by laughing myself to death, then there might be a real danger.
Lets just say that I don’t like people that make assumptions.
You must not be very fond of yourself then as you’ve made an impressive number of assumptions all the way through this conversation. Repeatedly you’ve attempted to tell me how I feel and what my response to a particular statement you’ve made will be. You’ve also “assumed” that I am depressed and should seek counseling for it.
Too many people like you make bad assumptions and judge people.
You know what I don’t like? Hypocrisy. People like yourself who are guilty of the very crimes you condemn others for.
Do I make bad assumptions about people? Yes, I sometimes do. Am I judgmental? I certainly can be. Making assumptions and drawing judgments based on those assumptions is how mankind survives on a day to day basis because there’s just too much information coming at you every second of the day to sit and contemplate everything prior to having to make a decision. Whenever possible it’s best to take time to consider things before making judgments, but that’s just not always possible in daily life. That is not a bad thing, it’s a survival technique. What IS a bad thing is when you allow your initial assumptions and judgments to become set in stone in spite of any new information you may receive that may show those initial assumptions to be incorrect.
In other words, it’s not bad that I draw certain conclusions about someone or something based on initial impressions unless I refuse to revise those opinions as I become more familiar with the person, item or concept in question.
It’s apparent that you’d like to think you don’t make assumptions and rash judgments yet the second line of your very first comment betrays the truth. You said, and I quote: “Why do you care so much about converting the ‘uninformed’ religious followers to atheism?” When I asked you what it is that makes you think I’m trying to convert anyone to atheism you responded with the following, and I quote: “Well, lets think about this for a second. Why are you at this website? Why did you respond to my comment? I think the answer is almost..too clear.”
You made a bad assumption and when called to task to explain the basis for that bad assumption you attempted to justify it by asking questions that you felt had obvious answers (another bad assumption) that supported your bad assumption.
For you to sit there and smugly proclaim that you “don’t like people that make assumptions” when the majority of your side of the conversation has consisted mainly of bad assumptions is the ultimate in hypocrisy matched only in the chambers of Congress by trained professionals. Perhaps this is indicative of a good career choice for you.
And Im not Christian either. Though it could have happened, all of it. I’m an infinitist.
Ah! At last! A statement of personal philosophy! You could have avoided a lot of assumptions about you merely by being forthright about this in the first place. Now we at least have something we can research to get a better understanding of what your philosophy is based on so that it can be compared and contrasted with other philosophies.
I’ve come across the philosophy of Infinitism before and thought it was definitely an interesting philosophical stance although most of my encounters with it were as a philosophy of thought rather than of religion.
I’m of the assumption that you are more of the religious bent considering your insistence that feelings are more important than reason which is contradictory to the fact that infinitism as a philosophy of thought is all about reason. As it appears that Infinitism as a religious concept is a combination of elements from Mysticism, Pantheism, Scientology, Existentialism, Hindu, Shamanism, Asatru, and Universal Unitarianism this would go a long way to explaining some of the contradictions you like to put forth as points of argument.
If infinity does exist, which it must, then there was no big bang. It would be a physical impossiblity.
What basis do you have for declaring that infinity MUST exist? You state this as if it were fact, which it is not. Current cosmological theories do suggest that it’s a good possibility that infinity does exist, but that’s not the same as saying that it MUST exist.
Also please explain your reasoning for why if infinity does exist that the Big Bang becomes a physical impossibility? Even within the theory that proposes the possibility of “multiverses” each universe could be finite in size within the confines of an infinite quantum universe. If it is true that multiple finite universes exist within an infinite quantum universe then there is no reason those universes couldn’t have started with a Big Bang event and even perhaps conclude in a Big Crunch.
You make two claims here without anything to support those claims. You just plop them out there and expect us to go “Oh, but of course! It makes perfect sense now.” as if they were beyond question. Perhaps these are your beliefs, if so you should state them as such and not as if they were accepted facts.
Infinity is forever, which therefore could present the existence of god, which is forever too.
It appears you’re relying on a logical fallacy known as Affirmation of the Consequent. Assuming for the moment that infinity is more than just an abstract concept, it’s reality doesn’t necessarily support the idea of the existence of a God. Both concepts having a mutual property of being “forever” does not mean that the existence of one would ensure the existence of the other. It’s entirely possible that God does exist and the Universe is not infinite. It is also entirely possible that the Universe is infinite and God does not exist.
If the universe wants to be tinted torwards good, then so be it.
What this has to do with anything that you’ve discussed so far is, again, lost on me.
Im sure that you’ll find all sorts of flaws in my thoughts, but i dont care.
Are these “thoughts” or are these “feelings?” It’s difficult to tell with you.
The flaws I find in your thoughts or feelings or whatever you’re calling them now have less to do with the fact that your religion is based on the worship of an abstract mathematical concept (whatever floats your boat) as much as with the logical fallacies and flat-out nonsense you use to support those beliefs as being correct. The fact that you consider atheism to be “stupid” in spite of the fact that your own personal philosophy has no reason to reject the idea as long as good reasons can be found to support it (and in an infinite universe there’s an infinite number of possible reasons to support both the existence or lack of existence of a God) comes across as being highly hypocritical.
infinitism is the way to go. evil and good must always be present in the infinity, otherwise there would be perfection. So, therefore, the bible was not completely false in its claims. Perhaps it was just...an archetype for the people of the past.
It seems clear to me that you either A) don’t fully understand the religious philosophy you’re promoting or B) you’re working with your own custom definitions once again that no one else seems to know about outside of yourself.
There is the third possibility of C) that you were dropped on the head repeatedly as an infant and have been somewhat confused about the nature of reality ever since, but that’s another mean-spirited comment so I’ll keep it to myself.
Still, it all makes for some fascinating reading.
Posted on 05/06/2003 at 02:04 PM
He’s gonna direct that movie, even if I have to kick his ass, chop it up build it back together and place it in the director’s chair. That book is one of the best and funniest in the world and he’s not going to fuck up one of the best and funniest movies.
Speechless.
Posted on 05/05/2003 at 11:03 PM
It figures you would post a response while I was in the middle of posting mine. So here we go with round 2.
My first quote may have been a bit unnerving for the suicidal types, but I think it is a good beginning for my comment. That statement, if you give it a couple seconds of thought, directly entails atheists. What’s there to live for if you can’t feel alive?
Once again I will repeat my question from my first response which you haven’t bothered to answer: Are you suggesting that atheists don’t feel alive?
I can’t speak for all atheists, but some of my greatest feelings of being alive have occurred since I first realized I was an atheist. I have a very keen awareness of the here and now that can take ordinary moments and make them almost magical. My belief in the finite length of existence has only increased my appreciation of it. If that’s not “feeling alive” than what is?
If you have nothing to live for, all you are really going to care about are your immediate feelings.
So says you. Most of the people I’ve met in my time who felt they had nothing to live for didn’t even care about their immediate feelings as they were overwhelmed by a sense of immense grief.
You appear to be suggesting that it requires some form of outside intervention for one to have something to live for. The assumption would be that you are saying God gives life purpose and that without God one’s life has no purpose.
I say I give my own life purpose. In fact, I give my life many purposes. Not the least of which is to poke fun at stupid people. Some of my purposes are altruistic and others are entirely selfish. All of them give my life meaning. Perhaps in your opinion my purposes are trivial and insignificant. Too bad I don’t care what your opinions of my purposes might be.
Drugs, sex, and immorallity can easily make you feel good. I doubt that they are good for you, but again, whats there to live for?
I’ve never partaken of a drug that wasn’t over-the-counter or prescribed by a qualified physician. Those drugs I have used do tend to make me feel better unless I suffer some form of allergic reaction to them. Considering I use them only for purposes of treatment and never for recreation I expect that trend to continue.
Sex I’ve engaged in often and repeatedly much to my delight. My relationships have always, save for one occasion, been faithful and that one occasion left me so unhappy with myself that I owned up to my weakness and lost a wonderful woman in the process.
Immorality is a subjective viewpoint which can only be debated once you have established what your particular morality happens to be. Personally I try to avoid violating my own personal sense of morality as much as I humanly can as immorality, as I define it, has never made me feel good. Perhaps your experiences with immorality are different than mine, however, as you seem to feel that it can make you feel good.
As for your question of “what is there to live for” I can only reply that the experience of life is what there is to live for. In all it’s wonderfully messy and chaotic ups and downs and daily tediums and overwhelming dramas. I look forward to the next day every time I go to bed because I know that it holds an equal promise of being one of the worst days of my life or one of the most amazing days of my life. Like a good book you can’t set down I look forward with eager anticipation to what each day might bring. What more could one ask for?
Therefore, atheists most certainly should contemplate their beliefs.
Almost all of them have, at length and, I would argue, probably more so than many religious people have contemplated theirs. A lot of people “inherit” their religious beliefs from their parents. It was how they were brought up and not a conscious decision on their part.
This sentence appears to be trying to tie up some form of proposition, but you’ve not made any kind of a proposition. You’ve only asked questions and then acted like you’ve made some sort of point.
Well, lets think about this for a second. Why are you at this website? Why did you respond to my comment? I think the answer is almost..too clear.
It’s an answer so clear that only you can see it would seem.
Why am I at this website? I own and run this website so wouldn’t it make sense that I would be at this website? That seems like a relatively clear answer that was lost on you.
Why did I respond to your comments? Because you responded to mine in the first place. You do realize that’s how a conversation or a debate is supposed to work, right? I say something, you say something, I respond, you respond. You know, an actual dialog. You are inferring intentions from my engaging you in debate that are not necessarily self-evident from the context of the discussion. Unless I’ve specifically said at some point that “my intention with this website is convince others that religion is foolish and they should convert to atheism” or words to that effect then you shouldn’t assume that that’s my intent.
Having said that, if something I say on here makes someone else think a bit more about their viewpoints and that leads them to decide to become an atheist, well, I certainly won’t be upset by that event. However, I don’t intend to convert anyone. I just enjoy in engaging in debate and occasionally making fun of people.
Personally, I don’t care if you believe we came into existence because some hyper-intelligent shade of blue farted and covered the Earth with his living flatulence if it helps you to sleep at night. If you’re going to come onto my website and try to convince me that your belief in a Supreme Flatulence-Maker is the One True Reality then I reserve the right to call you on the carpet and engage you in debate about it.
And I’ll probably call you a nutcase while I’m at it.
To me, your first sentence is rather rash and..evil.
Well, the website isn’t called Stupid EVIL Bastard for nothing you know. Hey, if making fun of stupid people is evil then I’m willing to ‘fess up to being the leader of this particular section of Hell.
I don’t feel stupid at all, so I guess it doesnt pertain to me.
I have a really nasty comment I could make here about how “feeling” stupid would require being smart enough to recognize a stupid action when you do it hence stupid people never “feel” stupid, but I won’t say it because it’s unnecessarily mean.
Incidentally, seeing as it’s my website I get to be the one who determines whom the definition of stupid applies to in my entries. Just because you don’t “feel” stupid doesn’t mean I don’t think you are stupid.
Well, I think I thought it through TOO well for someone like you to understand.
I would argue you haven’t given it enough thought yet or you’d see the egg on your face at the moment.
Allright, the second BIGGEST fear is death. Hello? Would you care if someone would just randomly kill you. Oh. Sorry, thats apparently something you enjoy.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything in the paragraphs you quoted just before it? It’s clear you’re not bothering to address any of the points being raised and are just grasping at straws, but let’s see if there’s anything here we can work with.
Would I care if someone would just randomly kill me? Well, that depends on if I know about it ahead of time. Obviously if I’m already dead I don’t exist anymore to give a shit one way or the other. However, if you mean “would I care if someone TRIED to randomly kill me” then, yes, I would care. And why wouldn’t I care? What is it about the belief in a God that would make a religious person care more than a non-religious person about being randomly killed? Hell, you’d think the religious person wouldn’t care because it would get them into Heaven that much more quickly.
Seriously, what kind of a stupid question is that? If I believe that my existence is finite and that there is no existence beyond death then it would probably stand to reason that I’d rather hold onto my life for as long as possible as it’s all I will ever get. How the hell do you get the idea that I’d enjoy being “randomly killed” because I don’t believe in an after-life?
And your wonderful “mental realization” thing… I don’t see how it would bring peace to you, nor how it would make you feel better about yourself. Maybe you should do some contemplation.
You’re the one who doesn’t understand how this could be possible. Perhaps you’re the one who should do some contemplation on the subject. I have no problems with the idea that there is nothing beyond death as I’ve already spent quite a bit of time in contemplation of it. I prefer to confront ugly realities than hide in pleasant fantasies. If it’s any comfort to you I’ll say that you’re not the only person who has trouble understanding such a concept.
And thats really great that you care about christians kissing the post of elvis things. I hope it satisfies your craving for bashing “stupid” people.
It’s been fun so far. There are still lots of stupid people out there for me to make fun of, though. My work is only just beginning.
Well, that certainly is a calming point of view. (the sarcasm was intended. you probably wouldnt understand theist humor)
Alas, I understand theistic humor all to well. I used to be a theist myself.
I never claimed it was a calming point of view. Truth can often be ugly and unsatisfying which is why so many people choose to believe in fairy tales instead. You appear to be among their numbers.
I don’t have a response to this.
Not at all surprising. Probably the most honest thing you’ve said to date. Your responses so far have all been much less informative than that single statement above.
It is very pessimistical about life and demotes human prescence here on earth.
I disagree. You might argue that it’s a pessimistic view of death, but it says nothing about life other than it’s finite in length. If anything, it gives greater meaning and purpose to life because there aren’t any second chances or extensions in other dimensions beyond it. And I wouldn’t say it’s pessimistic about death, just pragmatic.
In no way does it demote human presence here on Earth. Again, I’d argue that it promotes human presence here on Earth because there is no further presence once you die. What you leave behind as a legacy will largely contribute to how others judge the worthiness of your life.
Obviously, you have no problem with constance.
Hmmm. Why would I have a problem with an Alpine lake bordering on southern Germany, northern Switzerland, and western Austria or the city of the same name in southwest Germany that has a population of 68,605 and is thought to have been founded c. A.D. 300? (It’ll be interesting to see how many people have any clue what I’m talking about here.)
The universe, in your point of view, always had to be here and always will. (thats what i tried to deduce from you comment)
I merely suggested that it may have always existed in one form or another as a counter-argument to the idea that God has always existed. I never said I definitively believe that to be the case. What I DID say was that how the universe came to be is unimportant to me. It has no real impact on my life so I don’t worry about it. As a matter of trivia it would be interesting to know, but little more.
If you really want to try stretching your brain then I’ll point you to the theory I’ve been following lately that suggests space is infinite and filled with parallel universes, or multiverses, where every nonzero probability must occur no matter how improbable it might seem to be. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. Do I accept this new theory as being legitimate? Early experimental results seem to support it so far and I do find the idea fascinating, but even if it turns out to be the truth it doesn’t really change anything for me.
I’ll sum it all up here. If you have no problem with constance, then how could the universe end? and why weren’t you here for it all? also, if you have no problem with constance, then you have no problem with god. He is constant, just as the universe. I don’t see your apparent “logic”.
Considering the overly-simplistic logic you’re using here it’s not hard to understand why you can’t see the logic I’m utilizing. I’m beginning to think I must be dealing with a much younger person than I first thought.
Let’s take this step-by-step. I proposed the idea that the universe has always existed in one form or another. That’s an important distinction and it means that the universe hasn’t always existed in the form we see it now.
Einstein showed us that Mass and Energy are just two different forms of the same thing and that energy can’t be destroyed, it can only change form. The classic equation of E=mc^2. A small amount of mass can be used to create a lot of energy and, conversely, a lot of energy can be used to create a small amount of mass.
The classical “Big Bang” theory states that at one time everything that makes up the universe existed as an infinitely compressed point of pure energy known as a singularity that exploded outward to create the universe as we see it today. The complementary theory known as the “Big Crunch” speculates that the universe will eventually crash back in on itself and once again return to that infinitely compressed point of energy.
Therefor if one accepts the ideas that energy can not be destroyed and can be converted into matter and back again then the idea that the universe has always existed in one form or another is quite possible.
By extension: Seeing as I am composed of matter that at one point in time was pure energy you could argue that what I am composed of has been here for the entire duration and will continue to be here in a different form after I have died. I will always exist, in one form or another, I just won’t always be a conscious entity. My existence as a self-aware individual is finite, but the energy I am composed of is infinite.
That is all one possible answer to your question, it is not necessarily the most probable. None of it relies on a God to make it happen. As for your suggestion that if I have no problem with the universe being a “constance” (I believe the word you’re looking for is “CONSTANT") I will say that I do have a problem with the idea of the universe as a constant, because it’s not. By definition a constant is “unchanging in nature, value, or extent; invariable” and the theory I just proposed clearly shows that the only thing about the universe that is constant is change.
Even if I did accept the idea of the universe being constant that doesn’t logically mean I’d have to accept the idea of God simply because you claim he is also constant. God, by definition, is “super” natural meaning he does not conform to the rules of the “natural universe” and that means he is not the same as the universe. Accepting the idea of a constant universe therefor doesn’t automatically mean that logic dictates acceptance of a God.
I don’t believe in the “we exist because we dont exist” crap because its stupid.
Obviously, from your comment, you don’t have the… understanding to respond to this. Think about it.
I have thought about it and considering some of the oddball attempts at logic you’ve made in this discussion so far I would agree that perhaps I actually do not have the needed understanding of the rather unusual way you visualize reality to understand what the hell you’re trying to say. That’s more a failure of my ability to comprehend what is increasingly appearing to me to be a rather fucked up way of thinking than it is any supportive comment for your ability to fashion a logical statement. I often have trouble understanding the guy on my street who thinks he’s talking to aliens from the Planet Zippo as well, but I digress…
Not that I’m comparing you to the crazy guy on my street who talks to the aliens from the Planet Zippo. I would never think to insult him in such a way. He has a more refined ability to make a coherent statement even if what he’s saying is completely preposterous.
If you believe that feelings are “gut instincts”, then read my previous post. Those are my thoughts about your “evolution”.
I read your previous post and it made no sense. How about you try explaining yourself instead of dodging the issue for a change? Your second statement here has no real reflection on the first statement here. How are these two disparate concepts connected? I don’t recall you making any definitive statements about your thoughts on “evolution.” Perhaps you could clarify. Then again, perhaps you’re incapable of clarifying.
Oh, wait a second! Perhaps I spoke too soon! The next paragraph looks like an attempt at an explanation! I can barely contain my excitement!
First of all, to me, your feelings are your thoughts. Everything else is your math and “logic”.
This explains a lot of the apparent trouble you’re having in getting your ideas across. Most folks that I know consider “feelings” to be your emotions and your “thoughts” to be, well, your thoughts. Perhaps we should agree on some simple definitions. Looking at Dictionary.com’s entry for “feelings” we see the following relevant definitions:
Whereas for “thoughts” we get:
These are the commonly accepted definitions of these words among most of the people I know and I’ve been using these words based on these definitions. You’ve obviously been working from definitions of your own devising and that explains much of the resulting confusion.
I don’t see how this approach is silly…
I’d say using non-standard definitions is counter-productive to your being understood more so than just being silly.
...and I don’t feel that I’m being made fun of.
I have been accused of being too subtle at times.
I really think that you have taken a popularized belief system, accepted it, and are now attempting to defend it.
The same statement could be made about you and your belief in Christianity. It is, after all, a popularized belief system that you have accepted and are in the process of trying to defend.
Sure, you have all your parigdms (spelling), your religous evils, and of course your math and logic. But I think that you should judge yourself on how you feel, because thats what really matters.
Your implication being that I don’t take my feelings into consideration. Personally, I think a well-rounded individual takes both his emotions and his thoughts into account in all matters. I am as much an emotional creature as I am a thinking one and denying one aspect in favor of another diminishes my full capabilities.
That said, my lack of belief in a God or Gods is based as much on my feelings about the matter as any amount of thought or reasoning I’ve applied to it. I simply do not feel that the idea of a God or Gods has any basis in reality.
It doesnt matter when you die (because in your point of view, nothing happens) what kind of car you drive, how rich you are, how smart you are, how much sex youve hate, etc. All that matters is how YOU feel, and not how you THINK you should feel. If you don’t understand, just think about it.
The irony of you telling me I should trust my feelings over my reason by appealing to my ability to reason if I don’t understand is totally lost on you, isn’t it? That just cracks me up.
What matters is not just what I feel, but what I think. They are two aspects of a single whole and both have revelance and both serve me well when used properly. You appear to put more trust in your feelings than in your ability to reason. I don’t believe that has as much to do with a lack of capability to reason as much as perhaps a diminished bit of education in how to reason. Of course you’d have to want to know how to apply reason before you’d be able to do so and it’s clear that you haven’t any desire to cultivate that aspect of your mind and that is a crying shame.
But then the greater shame is that there are countless others who hold that very same viewpoint.
Posted on 05/05/2003 at 10:08 PM
Okay then, your belief that god does exist is justified because what justifiable belief supports it? I will await your reasoned explanation because from the little I have read so far you appear to be more of a foundationalist.
Posted on 05/05/2003 at 09:46 PM
I really should know by now that debating most theists (especially christians) is a waste of my time. What use is reason when faced with belief? Now before you go leaping wildly to the conclusion that I am saying your personal belief in god is unreasonable I am not. I personally do not understand it, but as you pointed out, most people do believe in some higher power. Of course most people were also indoctrinated into their religion when they were children and easily taught and led. I suspect that is why the religious fanatics in my country are so desperate to get prayer into the school system. Catch them young and mold them into “perfect” little citizens, eh?
Since you obviously have your mind made up I will waste no more time on this pointless exercise. I am sorry my independence threatens you so much but do not expect me to change just because of your inability to reconcile yourself to accept 15% of the population because they have learned to think for themselves. I think that admission alone proved my statement regarding your...narrow views.
Posted on 05/05/2003 at 09:24 PM
allrighty then. i assume, even though you have made several attempts to demean me as a person, that you want to debate. Well then, lets debate
First of all, I wouldn’t call feelings “gut instinct”. If you don’t have them, then you are a robot.
A quibble over definitions at worst. Usually when most people base decisions on their “feelings” they’ll claim they’re going with their “gut instincts.” Rather than argue semantics why not address the fact that you appear to value emotion (i.e. your feelings) over reason as a means of making judgments about things?
If a quibble over definitions is what you want to call it, be my guest. I think otherwise.
Also, I dont think that my view is very “narrow”. I accept all religions, and I only care that you have one. And narrow is hardly the word to use. Only around 15% of Americans have “no religion”, so I’m accepting 85% of the population.
Why do you care that people have any religion over no religion? If the particulars of a religion are so unimportant that any one of them is as good as any other one then what value is there at all in any of them as opposed to no religion? Are you seriously telling me that you feel that Wiccans or even Satanists are equally acceptable to you as your fellow Christians? What about Buddhists? They’re about as close as you can get to an “atheistic religion.”
Yes, only 15% of Americans have no religion, but if you were to consider them a “religious classification” that makes us the third biggest religious group just behind the Baptists and the Catholics in the United States. A mere 15% of Americans still comes out to 43,634,260 people. Presumably that means you “reject”, as you put it, over 43 million people for no reason other than they lack a belief in a god or gods.
You say “only around 15%” as if it were some small and insignificant number. The last election was lost by a mere 543,895 votes (not that it matters, the loser still won).
By this, I assume that you have placed religions in a sort of...pecking order, Satanists and Wiccans being at the bottom. If thats what people want to be, thats fine. I have absolutely no problem with the Wiccans--they dont do anything immoral and have a lovely outlook on life. The Satanists...well theyre satanists. Thats fine. Also,I have no problem with Buddhists. They believe in the mind and its immense power. I think that they have some validity--we only use 10% of our brains (i doubt there are ANY evolutionary explanations for that, but im sure youll come up with something to refute me) and i think that all humans have a psychic connection with their ancestors and whatnot. (if you want more, ask)
What I do have a problem with is people having no religion. There are many types of atheists, as I have come to understand. There are the depressed--something bad happened and they blame god for it, but he doesnt answer, and out comes ANOTHER mini series. There are the rebellious--mostly catholics that are annoyed with their religion and just want a break. There are science teachers--they have boring days and read wayyyy too much and find that “evolution” explains all their problems. I have found that most science teachers are agnostic, though, not atheist. I can understand agnosticism, though I believe that it is the stupidest religion because they dont KNOW anything. (if you want more, ask) And of course, there are the true atheists---like you who run websites like this one and dont REALLY know why other than to make fun of people. You sound depressed to me. I think you might want some psychiatric help. Seriously.
Anyway, Im sure you want to know WHY i dislike atheism. I think its stupid. It doesnt give any explanation to WHY we are here at all. How? Why? Im sure that you would probably say--there is no point to life. I will not go any farther because my points will incite suicide. And thats bad.
Also, I don’t know how you can know exactly what I believe before I even told you. My belief of heaven is far from your rather rash description.
He doesn’t know exactly what you believe and he made no claims to know exactly what you believe. He made a generalized statement on the assumption that you appear to be a Christian based on your comments so far. Considering that the vast majority of Christians do believe in the concept of Heaven and a further good percentage do believe that fellowship with God involves a lot of time spent telling him what a wonderful being he is, Eric’s comments weren’t necessarily off-base.
But please, do enlighten us with your visions of Heaven. If nothing else it should make for… interesting reading.
Lets just say that I don’t like people that make assumptions. Too many people like you make bad assumptions and judge people. And Im not Christian either. Though it could have happened, all of it. I’m an infinitist. If infinity does exist, which it must, then there was no big bang. It would be a physical impossiblity. Infinity is forever, which therefore could present the existence of god, which is forever too. If the universe wants to be tinted torwards good, then so be it. Im sure that you’ll find all sorts of flaws in my thoughts, but i dont care. infinitism is the way to go. evil and good must always be present in the infinity, otherwise there would be perfection. So, therefore, the bible was not completely false in its claims. Perhaps it was just...an archetype for the people of the past.
im tired. ill get you more tomorrow. i hope. anyhoo, a tout a l’heure.
Posted on 05/05/2003 at 08:59 PM
Now who says stupid stunts are ANY kind of a problem in our country? I salute these people (and myself) for sacrificing personal health and safety so other people can laugh at our pain. As far as i’m concerned, it’s fun. For all of you who just sit around and badmouth the likes of us, I suggest you go out and do something remarkably dangerous, live through it, and then see how your comments will change. I mean, seriously, come on! Now, nobody said there’s anything wrong at all with hurting yourself, provided it’s in the privacy of your own home, and if that’s what you’re into, so be it. I’ve done some incredibly stupid things to entertain my friends, and plan to do a lot more. For the amusement/media fodder of all you, here’s a few of my dumb stunts: I have 1) run full speed into a padded wall, 2) dropkicked a decorative lawn tree, 3) slid down a handrail into a kiddie pool, 4) booted myself in the skull, 5) run headfirst into an archery target, 6) started a massive hallway moshpit, 7) pierced myself with a stapler, 8) stuck 105 pins in my hand, etc. I have been doing this stuff for a long time, and I like it. The pain is a rush and to hear everyone laughing is a great thing. Maybe i’m a little sick, maybe you’re a little pretentious, maybe it’s nobody’s fault. Either way, just remember: I would be doing this regardless of what I saw on TV. People like me have been jackasses WAY before Jackass ever came anywhere close to hitting the airwaves. Forget the parents, they shouldn’t care about what their kids are doing with their friends and some video cameras, it’s the kids’ freedom.
Posted on 05/05/2003 at 07:27 PM
First of all, I wouldn’t call feelings “gut instinct”. If you don’t have them, then you are a robot.
A quibble over definitions at worst. Usually when most people base decisions on their “feelings” they’ll claim they’re going with their “gut instincts.” Rather than argue semantics why not address the fact that you appear to value emotion (i.e. your feelings) over reason as a means of making judgments about things?
Also, I dont think that my view is very “narrow”. I accept all religions, and I only care that you have one. And narrow is hardly the word to use. Only around 15% of Americans have “no religion”, so I’m accepting 85% of the population.
Why do you care that people have any religion over no religion? If the particulars of a religion are so unimportant that any one of them is as good as any other one then what value is there at all in any of them as opposed to no religion? Are you seriously telling me that you feel that Wiccans or even Satanists are equally acceptable to you as your fellow Christians? What about Buddhists? They’re about as close as you can get to an “atheistic religion.”
Yes, only 15% of Americans have no religion, but if you were to consider them a “religious classification” that makes us the third biggest religious group just behind the Baptists and the Catholics in the United States. A mere 15% of Americans still comes out to 43,634,260 people. Presumably that means you “reject”, as you put it, over 43 million people for no reason other than they lack a belief in a god or gods.
You say “only around 15%” as if it were some small and insignificant number. The last election was lost by a mere 543,895 votes (not that it matters, the loser still won).
Also, I don’t know how you can know exactly what I believe before I even told you. My belief of heaven is far from your rather rash description.
He doesn’t know exactly what you believe and he made no claims to know exactly what you believe. He made a generalized statement on the assumption that you appear to be a Christian based on your comments so far. Considering that the vast majority of Christians do believe in the concept of Heaven and a further good percentage do believe that fellowship with God involves a lot of time spent telling him what a wonderful being he is, Eric’s comments weren’t necessarily off-base.
But please, do enlighten us with your visions of Heaven. If nothing else it should make for… interesting reading.
Also, in your explanation of the Big Bang, you claimed that science is always evovling to fit new ideas and beliefs. It sounds to me as if you are claiming that science is always evovling. I would sort of think that science would be CONSTANT rather than some entity floating around to fit human thought. That kind of sounds rather...religious to me.
You would think incorrectly on both counts. Unlike religion, science doesn’t claim to hold all the answers. If a hypothesis doesn’t hold up under experimentation it is discarded and a new one is developed. Even once an idea has made the move to the status of “theory” or even a “scientific law” that doesn’t put it beyond the possibility of being discarded if some new evidence comes along that undermines it. So, yes, you could think of science as always “evolving” as theories are developed, refined, reshaped, tossed out, strengthened or otherwise changed as new data and new methods of gathering that data are developed. For example: Parts of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity have been proven time and again through experimentation to hold up and yet other parts have long since been abandoned as the data to back them up has not survived the passage of time and the new data that has been collected. The stuff that works is kept. The stuff that doesn’t, isn’t.
Religion, on the other hand, tends to hold onto dogma such as “the Earth is the center of the universe” long after the truth has been revealed to be otherwise and goes as far as to persecute those who would pursue the truth because of the threat it makes to the need for faith. Copernicus published his views on the heliocentric theory in his book The Commentariolus in 1514. Galileo backed those theories up with evidence in 1610 and was put on trial and imprisoned by the church for doing so. In 1993 the Vatican officially recognized the validity of Galileo’s work even though by then science had progressed far beyond even that simple reality centuries earlier.
Galileo’s theory even works well as an example of a theory being revamped when confronted with new evidence. You see, Galileo believed the Sun was fixed in place and the center of the universe and he was wrong about that.
It’s clear that if you truly understand science then you’d realize that the last thing it can be considered is a “constant.” Good science also doesn’t just float around to fit human thought, either. When humans try to make science out of what they believe “should” happen instead of what DOES happen you get bad science, or worse, the “Theory of Intelligent Design.”
Also, you put all of “religion’s wrongdoings” directly on my shoulders for blame. Well, I most certainly didn’t remove the dinosaur segment from textbooks, nor do I condone blood letting. I seriously think that you have some contemplation to do.
No, Eric didn’t put all of religions wrong-doings on your shoulders. He merely asked you what you believed about the nature of dinosaur bones or if it would surprise you that some religious folks want mention of dinosaurs removed from books. It appears you need to read more carefully before you compose a response.
And your last comments about atheism. I think that its an easy way out from morals and relieves humans from their obvious purpose of being on earth.
I would disagree with that assessment. First off, if our purpose of being on Earth is so obvious, then why can’t people agree on just what, exactly, that purpose is? To me an obvious answers should be just that: Obvious.
Secondly, I’m willing to bet that most atheists have spent more time contemplating morals and ethics than most Christians have. The fact that we don’t believe in some old guy handing out morals from on high means we have to decide for ourselves what is and isn’t moral behavior.
If it takes the threat of eternal damnation to make you a moral person, well, you’ll pardon me if I find that less than reassuring. I’d rather trust someone who wants to help me out of the goodness of his heart over someone who feels he has to or he’ll go to hell any day of the week. Considering the number of “Christians” who engage in less than moral behavior on a regular basis that whole threat-of-going-to-hell thing doesn’t seem to pull much weight with you folks.
If evolution has no point, then why did it choose for us to contemplate the universe?
Evolution didn’t choose anything for us. You’re ascribing anthropomorphic qualities to a scientific theory and that’s just silly. Try again.
I seriously doubt that that kind of contemplation would aid our “ancestors” in finding food and making shelter.
Don’t think so? So you don’t think that our ancestors used any kind of contemplative techniques for tracking animals? They just said “I FEEL THE DEER WENT THIS WAY!” and rushed off into the brush? And it was just a “feeling” that led to them figuring out how to make the first crude stone tools and there was no contemplation involved in their deciding to attach flint arrowheads to sticks to make the first arrows, they just “felt” like it was a good idea?
I would tend to think that the folks that did the least amount of contemplating were the least likely to survive. Ignorance may be bliss, but it won’t put dinner on your table.
Also, I am not on any “high horse” for being religious. I understand and accept other religions, but I don’t understand why people can betray their feelings for “mathematical reason”.
Who says we’ve betrayed our feelings? The implication you seem to be making is that deep down we atheists “feel” that God exists and are thus betraying our feelings by not believing in him. I feel very strongly that God doesn’t exist and I have reason to believe that my feelings are correct on this matter. How is that betraying my feelings?
That kind of life sounds very robotic, and much like the “blind obidience” that you were talking about.
It would appear you’re working with definitions of the words “robotic” and “blind obedience” that are not commonly known. From what I read, Eric has described a life that is the antithesis of what you claim here.
And as you can see, I am NOT afraid of contemplating the universe. Au revoir until next time.
I’ve seen very little contemplation in your response. You stated some opinions, shared some skewed observations, but offered very little in the way of explanation. You ask several questions in a manner that appears to indicate you already have an irrefutable answer in mind and expect us to take this as some sort of valid point of argument. That’s not contemplation, it’s hardly a decent discussion.
I would agree with that as well. A good example of how far removed our leaders/policies are from the regular joes! Actually it boggles the mind; our government doesn’t even represent the majority of us.
Posted on 05/05/2003 at 06:10 PM
Les--
My first quote may have been a bit unnerving for the suicidal types, but I think it is a good beginning for my comment. That statement, if you give it a couple seconds of thought, directly entails atheists. What’s there to live for if you can’t feel alive? If you have nothing to live for, all you are really going to care about are your immediate feelings. Drugs, sex, and immorallity can easily make you feel good. I doubt that they are good for you, but again, whats there to live for? Therefore, atheists most certainly should contemplate their beliefs.
What makes you think I care about converting anyone to atheism?
Well, lets think about this for a second. Why are you at this website? Why did you respond to my comment? I think the answer is almost..too clear.
I would think that you should be enjoying what life you have left instead of worrying about others.
Have you considered that part of the enjoyment I’m getting out of what life I have left comes in the form of making fun of people who do stupid things? In which case I’m doing exactly what you think I should be doing based on your statement above. You didn’t really think your response through very well before you fired it off, did you…
To me, your first sentence is rather rash and..evil. I don’t feel stupid at all, so I guess it doesnt pertain to me. Well, I think I thought it through TOO well for someone like you to understand.
To me, atheists have a clock in their head, constantly ticking away at their life. And the clock is proved accurate by the graying of hair, liver stains, and all the things that come with old age. And for those that say that the clock doesn’t bother them--why do you care about your wasted time and gray hairs caused by the “idiot” Christians?
This paragraph is almost coherent. I think what you’re trying to say here is that you believe atheists view the passing of time and the aging process as something to worry about because we don’t believe there’s an afterlife to look forward to whereas Christians, or at least religious people, can lead care-free lives because they believe there’s something beyond death.
Hate to break it to you, but the idea that there is no after-life isn’t something that occupies a lot of my thoughts. It’s a fact I’ve come to accept and has brought new meaning to my life that was lacking previously. If anything, it has been a very positive realization.
As for wasting time worrying about the “idiot” Christians, as you put it, I only worry about them when they threaten to force their views on me. My entry on the Coogee Beach apparition wasn’t anything to do with me being worried about some Christians wasting time praying to a fence post, it was me pointing out what a bunch of loonies they are. If they want to spend their time kissing and praying to a fence post then I say more power to them. Hell, if they spent all their time being silly like that I would probably be more than happy with it because A) it’s fabulous entertainment and B) it keeps them from doing other things like voting.
Allright, the second BIGGEST fear is death. Hello? Would you care if someone would just randomly kill you. Oh. Sorry, thats apparently something you enjoy.
And your wonderful “mental realization” thing… I don’t see how it would bring peace to you, nor how it would make you feel better about yourself. Maybe you should do some contemplation.
And thats really great that you care about christians kissing the post of elvis things. I hope it satisfies your craving for bashing “stupid” people.
What happens after death? Black nothingness?
Nothing happens after death. “Black nothingness” implies that the consciousness survives the process of death to experience something even if that something is “nothing.” I don’t believe your consciousness survives death. You simply cease to exist as an entity. The flesh and bone left behind breaks down in what could be considered the ultimate recycling project and the base components go on to become new things, but as I don’t buy into the idea of a soul I also don’t buy into the idea that there is some form of existence after you die.
Well, that certainly is a calming point of view. (the sarcasm was intended. you probably wouldnt understand theist humor) I don’t have a response to this. It is very pessimistical about life and demotes human prescence here on earth.
Also, how did the universe form? I know that you will probably say the “BIG BANG”, but from where did the big bang come from?
What difference does it make how the universe formed? Beyond the fact that it’d be interesting to know, what real difference does it make in your life? What difference would it make
<< Back to main or Click to go to this entry.