Thoughts of a contemporary Athiest...

[Leonis]

Thanks Wolfgir! Nice post. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

Well, I believe that when you do a kind thing, you have a chance that it may spread. And though I don't believe in any God, I prefer a kind world to a brutal one. Even at the cost that many of the people I might be kind with would think me a fool. That's why, when I have a choice, I prefer being trustful and kind to being suspiscious and rude. The human world is what we make of it, not something we must bear. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-24-2002, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: There are no moral or 'spiritual' absolutes. Only physical absolutes. U-238 decays to halflife in 4.5 billion years, that's an absolute. Gravity is an absolute.

No one said there where no absolutes, Physical or spiritual.

Morality is a concept, and thus no absolutes in this area exist. [/QUOTE]

If you believe there is no God then morality to you is just a concept, as it must also be to everybody else (from your point of view). So then atorcities, or violations of a moral code, must also be conceptual.

Do you do something, and it feels good? Even though your god says it's bad? [/QUOTE]

Yes, I have and will probibly do so again, because of the weakness of being human. It's called sin.

Do you do something and it feels bad? Even though your god says it's good? [/QUOTE]

No, never has that happened to me.

This was one reason, these moral objections to most religions I have drove me to agnosticism. Atheism is a leap of faith...If you haven't done your homework.[/QUOTE]

Nothing personal, but what homework would that be?

[Xero279]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Why would the creator and thus logically supreme ruler of the universe be a man, conveniently this creation story was invented in a time when Men were seen as superior to Women, and thus no respected religion would have a female deity, like Paganism, which lost popularity during the middle ages

not true, paganism is derived from shamanism, which has been a religion since earth and nature was created. other religions derived from it such as paganism which christianity came along and took lots of concepts from paganism then converted most pagans.. they brainwashed them. So in a way all you christians are part pagan, for most of your belives are taken from it. BUT, paganism is still a triving religion, AND so are the other forms of it, such as Wicca. [img]smile.gif[/img] Me being wiccan myself i know this stuff.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: I'm saying, what if we prove God wrong, can you still stand on your own 2 feet then? Which is my point, it's weak to not follow an adaptable set of rules, ones that pertain to themselves and a world that is constantly changing. Life doesn't have a 'real' meaning, only a perceived meaning.

Oblivion437,
Something is bothering me about this logic. "IF WE CAN PROVE" How do you propose to do this proving? God is a spirit, of the spiritual Realm not of this earth,(phsycial realm). Is not like He has a half life, like say plutonuim. So we're left with an "IF we can, can you stand on your own two feet?" The only sure manner of proving known to man is death, in that instance standing own your own two feet is null an void cause it's all over for you and you won't be doing any more standing ever! From the point of view of the atheist right? After death it is over right?

It's weak not to follow a set of adaptable rules? Well in another post you stated that morals are not absolute, so I'm asumeing your talking about morals (rules) here. So it's ok that 1,000 years ago the crusaders did their plundering? after all it WAS ok with their set of morals, as they saw them. Or Genghas Khan he was acting with in his morals. What about Atthila? Or anybody else you care to name throughout history. NO COMPLANTS can ever be made about their actions, following the adaptable rules logic. All they did was adapt the rules, but hey it's ok since the rules are adaptable right? And the world is constantly changing right? So, all we have done is change our rules to this new changing time, and our morals can't logicly be placed on them without violating the adaptable rules logic.

So, let me know if I got this straight? It's strong minded to place your trust in a "IF" That no one will ever be able to prove. Since the only way to prove it is through death, and you will never know if you were right cause it will all be over at death. It's strong minded to have a set of rules that change with time, that can be blown about in the wind, verses a set of rules that don't change, or get blown about in the wind.

[theifprowess]

wow not one religious person wanted to touch my last post....
did something i said prove right?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by theifprowess: wow not one religious person wanted to touch my last post.... did something i said prove right?

From what I read it seemed that you were going off topic to the merits of the American Indians. If you wish to discuss those merit start another thread and I'll be happy to dicuss the merits.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

thiefprowess, - I mean no disrespect to Native Americans and their treatment over the years. However, your "utopian" view of them is somewhat off-target. Various tribes warred among themselves long before (and after) the settlers arrived. And the victorious tribe would often "rape and pillage" the defeated tribe.
They HAVE been treated horribly by the Western settlers without a doubt. BUT, they were treating each other horribly before that.

AND, not all "white" men that "raped and pillaged" were Christians.

Oblivion,
You call Christians (or other faiths) "weak-minded" because we don't consider that God may not exist. You then ask "Can we stand on our own 2 feet if God is proven not to exist?" Yes, actually, I can.

Now....let me ask YOU...Can you stand on YOUR own 2 feet if God IS proven to exist? If not, then it is you who are being "weak-minded" because you are not "adapting".

My point is, you like to make some harshly critical statements about Christians being closed-minded, but you don't seem very willing to question YOUR beliefs. By your own definition, that also makes you "weak-minded".

[K T Ong]

My definition of an atheist:

A person who seriously believes that, if there were a junkyard in which are all the dismantled bits and pieces of a jumbo-jet airliner, and if a tornado swept through the junkyard, it would be possible, purely by chance, for the bits and pieces to be assembled by the tornado into a ready-to-fly airliner.

Figure that out.

[K T Ong]

BTW, Cerek, I still miss the handsome Norseman in your previous sig.