To the Anti-Religious

[Tiapan]

I keep hearing that life is too short and so far no one has ever given me reason to actually believe this. I don't even pause to consider how life could be "too short." If your life is too short, then you aren't living it as well as you could be. At the end of every day I am almost always satisfied with what I did that day and if I am not, then that is incentive to change for tomorrow.

Wait till your my age sunshine and say that again in the meantime:

If each life is a ribbon in the wind with a start and a tail. That which is written on each thread is precious. For some it ends too soon, while others use smaller writing.

Cheers

 

[Tiapan]

You can't.

You're a grumpy old man.

Honey, you've got a lot to learn about Grumpy Old Men

Cheers

 

[idea]

I keep hearing that life is too short and so far no one has ever given me reason to actually believe this. I don't even pause to consider how life could be "too short." If your life is too short, then you aren't living it as well as you could be.

Life is short for those who enjoy and live it well. Life is long for those who do not learn to enjoy it.

 

[Kathryn]

I am 47 years young. I feel great, and am blessed with good health. I love to eat, drink and be merry (ie, party). I love, love, love to dance. When I drive around in my car, I crank my music up and sing at the top of my lungs. I love nothing more than grabbing one of my six grandchildren and rolling around on the floor with them, tickling them, putting them on my knees and playing the human see saw, or just generally being silly with them.

The other day, my oldest granddaughter asked how old I was. When her mother told her "Mimi is 47," Maggie thought for a minute and then said, "Wow, she's nearly dead."

I was reading "Atlas Shrugged" the other day and realized that the last time I read that book, I was a senior in high school. If I had known then, as I held that book for so many weeks (that damn book is too long!), that the next time I would read it would be THIRTY YEARS LATER, I would have imagined myself as an old, old woman.

The older I get, the more time seems to rush by. I think this is because when we are, say, ten - one year is one tenth of our life. When we are fifty, one year is one FIFTIETH of our life.

I don't want to get old. But it beats the alternative.

When you are young, life seems to stretch before you like a wide road, disappearing over the horizon. When you approach middle age, you begin to realize..."Hey, this road ends! Is that the end I see right up there? Lord, I hope not!"

 

[rojse]

I was reading "Atlas Shrugged"...

My condolences.

 

[darkendless]

I still do not understand how one can have fun bashing others. I would not even consider it to be fun bashing such things as the KKK.

I also noticed your sig, would you mind explaining more about its meaning?

Its not "fun" but it is interesting to discuss such topics. I don't attack people for believing, but i do attack ignorance in areas that directly coincide with my studies.

My signature is the title of a track by a black metal band out of Finland called Zonaria. Their music has influenced my own somewhat. Its one of the only signatures of influence on me that i can have without offending anyone

 

[Kathryn]

My condolences.

"Atlas Shrugged" is a profound book, with profound weaknesses of philosophy as well as great strengths.

In my opinion, capitalism devoid of Christian faith is indeed bleak.

I read a lot of things I don't necessarily agree with, because I love to learn others' perspectives. Sometimes I change my beliefs, sometimes I don't - but differing beliefs don't threaten me in any way, and I don't feel the need to read only things I agree with. In fact, I think people who read to only bolster their existing beliefs are really missing out on a lot of truths. Kinda like living in a vacuum.

Kinda like getting news from only one source, be it MSNBC or Fox.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I read Paradise Lost in college. I found it so-so not really worthy of all the accolades – or it seemed.

Now in my 6th decade, I read it again. I found it both profound and moving. And while it certainly didn’t make me a believer I saw new wisdom and insight that quite escaped me in my 20’s.

Christopher Marlow remarked once about reading Hamlet at age 50, “It is a better play now because you are a better reader.” And indeed now as I consider all that I have yet to do or experience – and re-experience – life has gotten W-A-A-Y too short.

 

[rojse]

"Atlas Shrugged" is a profound book, with profound weaknesses of philosophy as well as great strengths.

Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst fiction books I have ever read. I could think of one or two that were worse, though, but it is near the bottom.

Rand's writing was flat, repetitive, and lifeless. Her characters were exactly like her writing. The plot was boring and repetitive. Although Rand's philosophy is somewhat interesting, she did not need twelve hundred pages to express her ideas, and the strawman arguments she set up against communism and socialism were ineptly portrayed and executed.

Rand also failed to extrapolate on the effects of her philosophies, which we should reasonably expect when she is basically writing a twelve hundred page supporting document for Objectivism. For example, if everyone is busy making money, and the government has been removed (as depicted in the final chapter of the novel), how will the environment be protected? How will a police force or emergency rescue service be maintained? What sort of system will be set up to protect the country from invading armed forces? These are all fairly simple questions that Rand should have anticipated when writing her door-stopper, but she fails to address any of these issues in twelve hundred pages.

No, I didn't think much of the book at all.

 

[monta]

Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst fiction books I have ever read.

She reminds me a bit of an atheist version of that blonde haired woman on The View.

 

[Storm]

You do realize most atheists were theists at some point? So "understanding" or "appreciating" spirituality does not enter into the equation at all.

I don't see the connection.

It is irrational because, again, there is no evidence. If you want to claim "I believe souls exist" that's fine. If that gets you through the day, that's awesome. But it doesn't change the fact there is no evidence to support the existence of souls and thus it is an irrational construct.

Allow me to redirect this to a more appropriate thread: Evidence? It's quite long, so I only ask that you read the OP.

 

[Magic Man]

In order to address a particular personal tragedy that occurred in my life I hope to stop the pointless loss of others loved ones lives. I have a very strong conviction to challenge those of Religious "Faith". I hope by getting the "faithful" to think carefully about their beliefs, and realise that these beliefs can have adverse psychological consequences on those around them especially children. Further that in extreme cases this influence can actually be fatal, with innocents being murdered.

I try to concentrate on those whose mainstream faiths are externally defined, then debate their principles as published, but I keep getting highjacked with the fringe dwellers over petty symantics. For these fringe religions, its a bit difficult to rationally discuss a subject where half the argument is based on the unique mental precepts of the individual virtual "true" believer. They know they're "right" come Hell or High water, is difficult position to shine a light on.

I am sure Storm is a lovely person but her forum persona is that of an ex-English schoolteacher ma'am, with a fetish for grammar, continually avoiding the real questions and lost in a delusional world of fantasy, with overtones of BD&SM chucked in. I visualize her with gray hair in a bun, glasses, and knitting in a rocking chair with a whip clenched between her teeth.(a recent miraculous irrefutable vision from my god, so it must be true. Do I smell the scent of Patchouli in the background?)

I think her Kool universe view is novel yet shortsighted, UU seems a bet each way, if they cant prove you wrong with logic they will use irrelevant nonsense instead, but is any of UU real, again absolutely no evidence, just gut feelings and yet to be found stuff, and the selfrigheousness of self delusion that generate these petite rhetorical responses. She believes she is always right because she is custodian of a universe that is made of everything logical and everything that is non-sense at the same time, a bit like Alice in Wonderland. Both sides covered. Its simply a chauvinistic power trip, where the game is to win not grow. Still whatever gets you off, do it. Any one who disagrees is therefore a Bigot, because it is not politically correct to challenge her personal perception of the Universe. Very shallow.

But who am I to complain since I spout logic and reason, an equally evil stance, because it challenges others to think that they may grow, what a terrible concept.

Tiapan, what are you talking about? Where did you get these ridiculous notions about Storm? You can challenge her personal perception of the universe any time you want, but it will only be responded to politely, if your challenge is also polite. She is one of the most reasonable and logical members on here. Maybe you should stop making rash judgements about people. It only makes you look bad.

 

[Azakel]

Tiapan, what are you talking about? Where did you get these ridiculous notions about Storm? You can challenge her personal perception of the universe any time you want, but it will only be responded to politely, if your challenge is also polite. She is one of the most reasonable and logical members on here. Maybe you should stop making rash judgements about people. It only makes you look bad.

I agree. It seems like our n00bs only know how it make ignorant pre-judgment about people here.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Why does this phrase strike me as pitiful?

Could be several reasons. You view the non-religious as less fortunate than you? Less enlightened? Less intelligent? Pick your characteristic. We only pity those we feel are below us in some way.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Because it is pitiful.

I find these statements to be incredibly arrogant. Because the poster does not hold the same view as you, you feel they are deserving of pity? What is so pitiful about that statement?

 

[Breathe]

I find these statements to be incredibly arrogant. Because the poster does not hold the same view as you, you feel they are deserving of pity? What is so pitiful about that statement?

Likewise, I find "Our time is coming. The internet is our church and we will expose organised religion for what it is." to be extremely arrogant. It's not they don't hold the same view (I don't care what view you hold) but when you (generic "you", not you personally) are being ******* ish, especially to those whose only crime is to believe differently to you (again, generic you), so you think you (generic you again ) can view them as inferior, then I care.

 

[Beaudreaux]

No doubt the "areligious" or the non-religious hold unsupported beliefs, the difference is that they are not commonly shared between the non religious nor encouraged and so collectively have no influence on each other, as groups, or on our culture. These unsupported beliefs would be held on an individual basis only.

I was unaware that I held unsupported beliefs. Can you provide examples?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I don't see the connection.


Allow me to redirect this to a more appropriate thread: Evidence? It's quite long, so I only ask that you read the OP.

1) Distinguish between an "experience with God" and schizophrenia.

2) First off, the general consensus among theists is that God exists in the supernatural world. The supernatural cannot be observed by naturalistic means. Therefore it is impossible to even know if a supernatural world exists, regardless of whether it exists or not.

The evidence that would convince me of God's existence would have to be naturalistic in nature. Either I would have to directly observe God, or find evidence of His presence like suspension of known laws of science or evolution being shown false. If evolution were proven to be false, that would indicate a probable randomness in how life developed. The universe is anything but random. Evolution being shown to be false would shake my faith that God does not exist.

 

[Oberon]

The evidence that would convince me of God's existence would have to be naturalistic in nature.

Strong anthropic principle? It convinced Anthony Flew. I still don't know, but you should read this: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

 

[Azakel]

First off, the general consensus among theists is that God exists in the supernatural world.

Really, I think that consensus if off then. There are many Theist that don't hold to that. But then again I think that such a consensus might only be collecting data from Mainstream belief and leaving out a big chunk of other Theist.