The Official Atheism Thread

[Dane]

"If there is sin against life, it consists… in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life." Camus

[Moloc]

My dad thinks that my mortal soul is going to fry in a lake of fire because I haven't accepted Jesus as my "personal lord and savior." It's so sad that my father has to hold on to this kind of fear. That's the kind of dogma that really gets under my skin. I don't believe in higher powers or spirituality, but I don't have a problem with people who do. I get angry when someone tells me this childish, vain, god is going to torment me for eternity after I die if I don't believe in his son--a son he murdered in cold blood.

When those people come to my door to talk at length about the Lord, I let them in and ask them why God doesn't heal amputees or why there are tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands of people. The last group of Christians that came told ME when it was time for them to go. "You don't have to leave yet, do ya? We haven't even explored the four fundamental forces of the universe yet!"

[About2Crash]

The way that people think of agnosticism is nothing more than atheism without wanting the associations given to the word atheist.

I disagree. I wouldn't mind being placed in the same category as atheists, but I genuinely think that the presence of some higher being is a definite posibility.

So do I. I genuinely believe that the presence of some higher being is a definite possibility. That being said, I think that the definite possibility is unlikely.

Being an atheist has nothing to do with the science ie "putting too much faith in science" thing. I could have absolutely no knowledge of science history or current theories and still be able to say "I don't know" in regards to whether or not God exists. Since I don't know, I can't believe. Since I don't believe, I am therefore an atheist. Being right or wrong about science has nothing to do with it. Faith is a bad thing.

So yes, we can't leave any possibilities out, but we by no means should treat every possibility with the same amount of relevance or attention. If you want to show whether or not science or religion offers more in the way of figuring something out, science wins every time. Science is about continually being wrong, slimming down what we don't know with every new discovery. Science is less about discovery and more about continuous refutation and continuous experimentation.

Also, Stephen Hawking uses God in the "whatever the answer is to what created the universe? is god" definition. a metaphorical, but misleading use of the word. he has stated elsewhere that he is an atheist.

[Dane]

I am still very skeptical of morality existing. I don't know if everyone gets upset about this because it sounds like something a religious person would use as an argument, I don't intend for it to be that type of thing. I just don't think OBJECTIVE morality exists. Ethics we can talk about and subjectively agree upon, sure. Set in stone, good and evil. Thats delusional.

[Erik]

I don't really care about religion and thankfully have not had to argue as to whether or not God exists in a while. Life is good.

[About2Crash]

I am still very skeptical of morality existing. I don't know if everyone gets upset about this because it sounds like something a religious person would use as an argument, I don't intend for it to be that type of thing. I just don't think OBJECTIVE morality exists. Ethics we can talk about and subjectively agree upon, sure. Set in stone, good and evil. Thats delusional.

i think that morals and other social conditioning is set up through trial and error in societies over thousands of years. most of the morals modern Christians have would today be considered heresy at any other point in their history. the response i always get is "times change". Bullshit. The entire POINT of religion is that there is a set of rules by the almighty God who CAN'T be wrong. To suggest that religion should modify itself to fit alongside anything is to suggest that a religion's success is not in what it says, but in how easily it can be adapted and manipulated into new meanings. religion is about stagnancy. if it were meant to have growth there wouldn't be rules.

[Erik]

i think that morals and other social conditioning is set up through trial and error in societies over thousands of years. most of the morals modern Christians have would today be considered heresy at any other point in their history. the response i always get is "times change". Bullshit. The entire POINT of religion is that there is a set of rules by the almighty God who CAN'T be wrong. To suggest that religion should modify itself to fit alongside anything is to suggest that a religion's success is not in what it says, but in how easily it can be adapted and manipulated into new meanings. religion is about stagnancy. if it were meant to have growth there wouldn't be rules.

Indeed. I don't need God out there telling me to not off people, I know its wrong. Even the act of murder is never acted out in the animal kingdom. Killing there is always very ritualistic and either involves acts of war (territory or leadership dispute) and predator/prey (for food or defense). Murder is wrong but, is killing another man. Only if that other man threatens my ability to survive. War is a whole other topic but, many wars we have been in should not have happened. Additionally, how many wars were started due to religious ideologies.

[Dane]

Huh.

[Moloc]

My guess is that he didn't die with a lot of money in the bank. But boy did he have inches!

[Dane]

He drank himself to death from loneliness. An ATHEIST who values something as stupid as money is an unthinking cunt of a person.

Reddit can burn violently but this is still good.



I despise communication with people, there are things I want to say, but they are based on my feelings and the thoughts that come from those feelings. If I were to write them outright, it would seem like cliched bullshit (which it very well could be), BUT, the horrible part about this is, the problem with me writing what I want to write is that only the words and the reader's interpretation of the words will exist to the reader. The sincerity and the thoughts behind what I would write are completely lost in "transaltion" or interpretation.

I honestly don't know if this makes sense to anyone but I think it is what real aloneness is, as part of the human condition.

[enraged]

Very nicely done

Crazy Watering Can on Vimeo

[Iced]

"Reason Rally" in DC on Saturday. Richard Dawkins and some other atheism bros are gonna be there. I might check it out.

[Moloc]

I'll bet there is going to be some sort of tribute to Christopher Hitchens. If not, there should be.

[Wigg]

I watch at least one lecture or debate a week usually with one of the four horseman or Neil deGrasse Degrasse or some such. There's too much to post about really, but this following debate with Dawkins vs Cardinal Pell was on Australian TV the other day so it's very fresh indeed. Not sure if it'll be viewable outside Aus so someone let me know.

[Moloc]

Viewable in "Australia only." Bummer.

[Wigg]

Ok no worries, I found a lesser quality Youtube rip which should work for all. Hopefully it doesn't get taken down, but I don't see why our ABC bros would take issue.

[About2Crash]

thanks a lot wigg. there goes my next hour.

[Iced]

I'll bet there is going to be some sort of tribute to Christopher Hitchens. If not, there should be.

Yeah, they had a video tribute but it stopped working and got cut off half way through.

[Iced]

HAHAHA 48:00 in that video is hilarious.

[Eddy[IM]Martijn]

Nice vid.

I like how George Pell believes in evolution to some extent. But what's up with him towards the end??? he looks troubled

Also like how Richard Dawkins keeps his cool, allthough sometimes visually irritated, while Pell tries to make fun of him. (It looks like that to me)