What is the best argument for an atheist?

[bhaktajan]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that makes EVERYTHING clear now

That makes 1,635 Posts and counting . . . you are prolific.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well thanks grandpa!

No problem, little child. Perhaps, one day, you too will be able to be honest and rational enough to tell the difference between myth and reality. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

 

[bhaktajan]

False

we are are not in a lowly place, if anything were more in touch with reality then living behind a myth written by ancient man that didnt know which end was up.

I find your statement to be barbaric and primitive to put yourself in a postion above anyone else despite religion or lack of.

Job was not an atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(Biblical_figure)

Anne Frank was not an atheist.
Anne Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find your statement to be barbaric and primitive

The 20th century was famous for all sorts of atheists:

The 20th century of the Common Era began on January 1, 1902 and ended on December 31, 2001.

The British, Russian, German, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian empires dissolved in the first half of the century, with all but the British Empire collapsing during the course of World War I. The inter-war years saw a Great Depression cause a massive disruption to the world economy.

20th century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhaktajan]

You are so full of faecal matter

Yes, we learn from the expertise of authorities ---that is the maxim.

What everyone must be conflating is:
Our past authorities were whore mongering thieving fools ---that simply generated the same seed of future generations.

Our forefather that won the war fought other forefathers that lost the war.

And now, the tradition carries on.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

That makes 1,635 Posts and counting . . . you are prolific.

HEY

There's no need for name calling.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Job was not an atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(Biblical_figure)

Anne Frank was not an atheist.
Anne Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... and look what happened to them!

The 20th century was famous for all sorts of atheists:

The 20th century of the Common Era began on January 1, 1902 and ended on December 31, 2001.

The British, Russian, German, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian empires dissolved in the first half of the century, with all but the British Empire collapsing during the course of World War I. The inter-war years saw a Great Depression cause a massive disruption to the world economy.

20th century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait... so atheism was the cause of World War I and the Great Depression? :areyoucra

 

[bhaktajan]

HEY

There's no need for name calling.

Yes! just like the Red-Scare in the 1950's America aka The Senator McCarthy heardings!

McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, yeah. Yall is all correct!
I know nothing. I'm crazy.
I see nothing. I'm crazy.
I say nothing. I'm crazy.

Please forget about me.

And it's not true that I have a tattoo on my arm of ex-president George Bush shaking hands with Tony Blair.

Wait... so atheism was the cause of World War I and the Great Depression?

Atheism was not that won the war. And atheism was not the cause for civil-reforms.
Atheism was not the cause for the formation of the United States ---but Atheistic-nihilism definately caused many to leave Europe to come to America.

 

[Meow Mix]

Declarations of Atheism is simply a lazyman's response to the lowly place they got them selves into.

Please explain exactly how atheism is "lazy" and "lowly" in plain English, using rational argumentation and not by using allegory, metaphor, or mystical speech. Also, please use your own words and don't just post links or quotes (unless you use links/quotes as supplements).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Please explain exactly how atheism is "lazy" and "lowly" in plain English, using rational argumentation and not by using allegory, metaphor, or mystical speech.

Might as well ask for the sun to rise in the west.

 

[bhaktajan]

Please explain exactly how atheism is "lazy" and "lowly" in plain English, using rational argumentation and not by using allegory, metaphor, or mystical speech. Also, please use your own words and don't just post links or quotes (unless you use links/quotes as supplements).

Wow, I did NOT SAY ATHEISM WAS LOWLY!!

I had said:

Declarations of Atheism is simply a lazyman's response to the lowly place they got them selves into.
It is not sincere nor researched.
I have presented multiple arguments to support the "Limited fund of Knowledge" we all have ---and how we must rely on those mentors that went before us.
Religion based terrorists that we see in the News are not sincere nor researched nor intellecturaly gifted ---they are inventing false doctrines, where the only good news is that they have been reported as "dead".
A movement that says one thing . . . yet also, seeks Land & Wealth & whole Populations to claim as their own are not driven by honest philosopy ---they are seeking self-glory of their own concoction.

I also said, "EVERY ATHIEST (ie: high-minded deep thinkers)" MUST REMEMBER IS:

Life is short, and when one seeks Eating, drinking & being Merry as the meaning of life ---there is only a minimum of time to educate oneself before work obligations pull us back into the rat race, whence the over-arching ethos of "Eat, drink & be Merry" as the prime purpose of life.

Yet since life is short and full us misery. work & sufferring [the Buddhist's "1st Noble Truth"] and taxes too ---one should really invest what little time we have in this life to seek out what truths are out there ---but:

Since economic depressions leave the majority of the world's population in want, it is the poor and the meak and the downtroden that gives rise to considering "A Higher Power".

When we are Kings of The world we do not first consider Service to God;
when we are in a Lowly position we cry out to God.

When I said:
"Atheism is simply a lazyman's response to the lowly place they got them selves into" ---I was condemning the "lowly spot" not the atheist.

If an Atheist find themselves in ideal conditions ---it becomes a loathsome place because of their Atheism.
Where ever Atheism is accepted as the standard we find Abuse by Leaders ---Not the other way around.

Atheism is the same as self-proclaiming master of all one surveys ---and then outlaw anyone that says otherwise.
Atheism is the opiate of dictatorships.

Atheism does not allow for democratic rule of law.

The best example of Atheism as publically practiced by lazy chaletains is the recent Billboard outside New York City:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-causes-storm-entrance-New-York-tunnel.html
What I have yet to hear from these Atheist spokemen is their theological Argument.
Since when does a non-read person proclaim expertise in a subject that they abhor?

We have Bible haters preaching not to read the Bible?
This is a false argument. They lible the Bible and prove their assertions by relying on any sort of debate except the actual text.
IE:
"Have you read the Bible? No? Well don't, because it's false!
Take my word for it, I have never read the Bible and never will, so you better not also! take my word for it."

Read it and then decide afterwards if you want to read it a second time ---remember life is short, you'll have to work hard to fit in th time to attend to such readings.

There are little Osama Bin Ladens trying to play King-of-the-Hill in their own Hoods and aspiring to be romaticised Mafia King-pins ---rather then bowing humbly to the teachers and learning a skill to preform as a redeeming social service ---because they are lazy atheists . . .

I do not believe these guys really can fix their car problems ---they are just poseurs trying to look earnestly busy:

Declarations of Atheism is simply a lazyman's response to the lowly place they got them selves into

This is what an honest atheist would say.

When a person's karma gets them in the lowly place of a maxium security prison ---they are in the company of other lazy Atheists.

At that point, an honest atheist would say, "Dear God Re-form me"; an laazy atheist would say, "God let this happen to me; so. there ain't no God!"

 

[outhouse]

Job was not an atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(Biblical_figure)

Anne Frank was not an atheist.
Anne Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

job may be fiction

and this reply doesnt have 1 thing to do with my comment.

The 20th century was famous for all sorts of atheists:

who cares, it has nothing to do with your previous comment.

you stepped in it.

 

[atanu]

Emergence as a phenomenon should not be hard to grasp. Every system is an emergent property of its functioning constituents. You can describe the system at a high level without making necessary reference to the physical components that comprise the system.

Hello Copernicus

Thanks for your time. Thanks also for helping to continue rationally in the midst of chaos.

I agree to above.

Indeed. I think that the ancients also understood the brain-mind connection, even though their religious doctrines rejected the necessity of that connection. After all, they witnessed enough brain injuries and their effects on human behavior.

Yes.

You just lost me from this point on. I never claimed that ability and intention were the same thing. This has nothing to do with what I said. Thought, sensation, actuation, etc., are all distinct mental functions. The brain enables all of them.

Yes. It is likely that many readers will diverge at this point because we are coming from two fundamentally different perspectives. Still I am a rationalist and will strive on, although there is no guarantee that I will be able to convey what I wish to.

When I say that brain is an instrument, I do not accord it a status of enabler. I have many times pointed out that the brain is not an enabler in a dead body, though it is not devoid of any constituents at the time of death. A brain in a dead body does not enable a dead person to say "I wish to live. Do not bury/cremate me".

We have five knowledge organs led by the brain. These organs have their respective functions. For example, skin provides the sense of touch. (In Hinduism, these organs are also called 'grahas' or that which bind). If the sense of touch was not there in skin, one would be infinite and not encased in a body. Similarly, the food that we crave for taste, loses all taste and becomes indistinguishable when it leaves tounge and enters oesophagus. Basically, these sensual organs create a sense of localised personal identity -- for enjoyment of sensual wonders.

Sorry for the lengthy note. What I wish to indicate at this stage, is that these organs are not enablers in a dead body. These organs are not enablers in a man who is in deep sleep also. The view that a sleeping man still has a body, is your view from waking state. It is not the view from deep sleep itself.

Similarly, a man thirsty in dream will need dream water only.

Why yes. All of that is perfectly obvious and contradicts nothing that I said. Physical brain activity is behind all mental functions. What is difficult to imagine is not the separation between mind and brain, but the inseparability of the two. Yet there is simply too much evidence that two are inseparable. Brain injuries have all kinds of effects on mental activity. If there were separability, one would expect some mental function not to correlate with brain activity.

Surely. Brain injury will impair the normal mental faculties that we have come to consider as normal.

I get your point about growing wheat. The rest of it strikes me as a bit nonsensical. Dreaming correlates with brain activity. It can be detected and studied instrumentally. Also, one's body actually does remain physically present when one is in a deep sleep or even a coma. Consciousness comes and goes, but it still needs a functioning brain to be present. We know that, because we can easily correlate periods of consciousness with the physical states of bodies and brains.

Measuring dreaming activities is a waking observation and not the observation from within the dream.

In waking, we have a bony body and mental activities correlate with that body. In dreaming, we have a subtle light body and the corresponding mental activities correlate.

In deep sleep, there is no body and there is no corresponding mental activity. It is as it is. The person is however, the same in all three states.

Regarding the statement 'consciousness comes and goes', I prefer to rephrase 'awareness of localised body changes and comes and goes in these three states, although the person remains the same'.

It is said (And you may just ignore this part, if it hurts your rational mind too much. Alternatively, you may give this a bit of extra attention) that in deep sleep we are as we are, without the superposition of mental pictures. We are as we are - pure dense consciousness. Nothing is known in this state because there is no second colour, no second sound, no second smell, no second touch. There is no boundary whatsover for consciousness to land upon and get reflected. This is so, since this state is devoid of desire and consequent absence of mental creations that sit over the pure consciousness, hiding it in the other two states.

It is somewhat like this. "I" was a scientist sometime back and "I" behaved like that. Now that "I" am a General Manager, "I" act like one. Sometimes, "I" forget that "I" am what I am, and believe that "I" am a General Manager, although being General Manger is just a role playing.

I have repeated this enough and there may be a backlash soon. So, I better go underground for some time.:sleep:

Right back at ya.

Regards

...

 

[Meow Mix]

Life is short, and when one seeks Eating, drinking & being Merry as the meaning of life ---there is only a minimum of time to educate oneself before work obligations pull us back into the rat race, whence the over-arching ethos of "Eat, drink & be Merry" as the prime purpose of life.

I'm an atheist. "Eat, drink, and be merry" isn't the "prime purpose of life" to me. What I'm saying is that you're making unnecessary assumptions about atheists and their worldviews.

My purpose of life that I've created for myself does include enjoying life, but it also includes trying to leave this world a better place when I expire than it was when I entered it in any way that I have the power to. I also purpose to try to defend the rights of those who have them trampled so that they can enjoy life and do the same. Life is precious, the universe is precious and awesome (in the original sense of the word, awe-inspiring, not "dood awesome!")

If an Atheist find themselves in ideal conditions ---it becomes a loathsome place because of their Atheism.
Where ever Atheism is accepted as the standard we find Abuse by Leaders ---Not the other way around.

Both of these things are false. I feel that I'm in pretty ideal conditions, and it's not a loathsome place. I've found someone that I love with every fiber of my being and who loves me back -- "true love." I have a successful career in school right now and hopefully a successful career after that. I have friends whom I love and cherish and I live comfortably, even though I'm not rich. I'm very happy, the place that I'm at isn't "loathesome" in the slightest bit. Why would you assume that an atheist would feel the place their in is loathesome?

As for your comment about leaders being abusive, that's not a very constructive view of the matter in my opinion. Tyrants don't abuse people in the name of atheism, they generally abuse them in the name of political ideology. Stalin, Pol-pot and their like didn't murder and oppress in the name of stamping out theistic belief (though indeed, some of that was their political motive, that doesn't reflect on atheism as a whole any more than the violent crusades or witch-hunts reflect on Christianity as a whole). They killed in the name of communism and other political beliefs.

Atheists aren't monsters. We're not the depressed, slobbering beasts who lack morals that we're often painted as. Most of us are very compassionate people who would never trample on other people's rights.

Atheism is the same as self-proclaiming master of all one surveys ---and then outlaw anyone that says otherwise.
Atheism is the opiate of dictatorships.

Atheism does not allow for democratic rule of law.

This is nothing short of slanderous lies. You can't blame an entire group of people for the actions of a deluded few. Atheism is not a political ideology, it's not even a worldview. Atheists have many different views because all atheism involves is lacking belief in the existence of god(s). When you're talking about a people who are grouped together by what they're not, you'll end up with a very diverse people: consider what people who don't have blonde hair have in common (not a whole lot, that's what).

I'm an atheist, and I believe democratic republics are the best forms of government. I believe government should be done by the people and for the people, and that people have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness; and that never should anyone's rights be infringed by other people or by their governments. The only time someone should be infringed is if they are harming people, such as in cases of assault, murder, theft, and so on. Otherwise, people should have freedom of religion, freedom of speech/expression/press, and so on.

If what you're saying is true, how can I and many other atheists believe this? Please, I'm asking you politely to stop slandering us. It's very rude.

We have Bible haters preaching not to read the Bible?
This is a false argument. They lible the Bible and prove their assertions by relying on any sort of debate except the actual text.
IE:
"Have you read the Bible? No? Well don't, because it's false!
Take my word for it, I have never read the Bible and never will, so you better not also! take my word for it."

I'm an atheist and I've read the Bible. I don't discourage people from reading it. I believe people should be able to believe whatever they want; I just may happen to disagree with it and find it irrational. It's their freedom to believe it though, and I'd fight for their right to believe it.

This is what an honest atheist would say.

When a person's karma gets them in the lowly place of a maxium security prison ---they are in the company of other lazy Atheists.

At that point, an honest atheist would say, "Dear God Re-form me"; an laazy atheist would say, "God let this happen to me; so. there ain't no God!"

First of all, atheists are not the majority population in maximum security prisons.

Secondly, I agree that it's lazy to say "I don't like what's happening to me, so a god must not exist!" That's not a good argument and not a good reason to be an atheist. However, I think you'll find that very few atheists are atheists for that reason.

It seems to me, and please forgive this speculation, that you haven't dealt with very many intelligent, mature, informed atheists. Well, welcome to Religious Forums. There are many scholarly atheists here, and we may be able to brighten your opinion about us yet.

 

[bhaktajan]

If an Atheist find themselves in ideal conditions ---it becomes a loathsome place because of their Atheism.
Where ever Atheism is accepted as the standard we find Abuse by Leaders ---Not the other way around.

Both of these things are false.

If it is false then the history books have recorded filled with false stories of goolish behavior---why?

It is not false. One must know History.

The biggest atheist in History are the biggest adversaries to peace.

Yes, Rose-colored glasses are pretty.

All the problems of the world are presently being "passed along to grand-children" to sort out for themselves.

The duality of the mechanic of the creation includes "Irony".
Do you know [as one of my school teachers taught me], that comedy is based on watching others suffer?

The audience laughs at Bud Abbot while Lou Costello feigns not understanding that "Who's on First, What's his name's on second".

The audience laughs as Moe slaps the stooges in the head with a shovel.

The audience laughs the Boss is an idiot in the "THE OFFICE" ---have we noticed the new version of comedy called "Cringe" comedy?

I agree that it's lazy to say "I don't like what's happening to me, so a god must not exist!"

Well, that was what I was saying.

That's not a good argument and not a good reason to be an atheist.

But . . . I am saying that most athiests [IMO] are atheists ONLY for this reason ---IOW, they are not scholars; they are speculating [not that their is anything wrong with speculation].

Monism in Hindu metaphysics is real & proper atheism with a system of metaphysics that accomplishes/answers most purposes/questions ---yet still leaves one without anything but self-involvement to turn to; but the Karma-pay-back and repeated cycle of births keep them all on their best behavior (this applies to Buddhist's metaphysics too)

 

[Aopllo]

MM, the Ignore feature works.

 

[Meow Mix]

If it is false then the history books have recorded filled with false stories of goolish behavior---why?

It is not false. One must know History.

The biggest atheist in History are the biggest adversaries to peace.

Stop yourself for a second and ask if the Spanish Inquisition had the technology of the 1940's-1980's, would they have committed atrocities on the same scale? What about the Salem judges who condemned witches to death? What about the Crusaders?

These people didn't have things like instant communication, nationwide networks, methods of identification like accurate censuses and databases, machine guns, propaganda films/literature, and so on. If they did, I think you would find that they would have been just as bad as Stalin's regime.

Nasty people will use anything to justify their crimes, that doesn't mean that the thing they justify their crimes with is nasty. (Besides, as I pointed out, Stalin didn't committ atrocities in the name of atheism, he did it in the name of communism).

You can't say that all atheists or even that most atheists are evil tyrants, that's just silly and flat out wrong. Most atheists are just like me. Do I seem like an evil tyrant to you?

But . . . I am saying that most athiests [IMO] are atheists ONLY for this reason ---IOW, they are not scholars; they are speculating [not that their is anything wrong with speculation].

I don't know about the rest of the world but that isn't the case where I live. Most atheists that I know are thorough, educated, scholarly and intelligent. So again, please don't let your preconceptions rule you. Atheists are not slobbering idiots without morals. Some are, but then again that's true for ANY group, right?

So, why bother trash-talking the atheists that make stupid choices when you can converse with intelligent atheists?

 

[Meow Mix]

MM, the Ignore feature works.

Oh I know, but everybody gets three strikes

 

[Aopllo]

Ah, tolerance and forbearance.

What admirable virtues are here displayed.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

My purpose of life that I've created for myself does include enjoying life, but it also includes trying to leave this world a better place when I expire than it was when I entered it in any way that I have the power to.

You're awesome MM.

I wish i knew you IRL.

-Q

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Well MM it was a bit of a stretch to get a straight let alone intelligent and well thought out answer out of him.

-Q