Atheists....

[cuppajoe_9]

When I say I didn't much care for it, I am not refering to the fact that my freedom was restricted. I am refering to the capacity that was instilled in me to feel large ammounts of irrational guilt, not to mention irrational fear of eternal torture and the entirely irrational belief that sex and the sex instincts are somehow 'bad'. I don't need any of that, thank you, I'm stressed-out enough. On the off chance that I am, somehow, convinced that the Judeo-Christian version of God actually does exist, I suppose I might have a shot at Unitarian Universalism.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Well said.

I get so bored with these statements which come up as though pre-determined by some kind of christian lottery:

"Hey, it's your turn to point out that they can't be actual atheists..."

N.B. to any which think that way:

In case my screen name doesn't give it away, I'm a strong atheist.

It's taken me nearly half a century to arrive at strong atheism, having passed from an openly atheist child to an agnostic youth, a questioning twenty-something, an atheist thirty-something and on to where I am now, a complete and outspoken atheist as I near fifty.

Just a note for christians - every single one of your positions or arguments is something I've already heard many times over the years and can be summed as up "anecdotal evidence + a collection of Abrahamic god myths = christianity".

You're welcome to retain the comfort-blanket of the big sky-daddy, but please do not, even for a millisecond, suggest that you know anything about life on the side of the road where there are no gods - the real world - because you have no idea why I'm an atheist and almost certainly all of the reasons you've been given to explain why people are atheists are irretrievably wrong.

Atheists are atheists for the simplest of reasons - there are no gods. We'll never agree on that, but I do respectfully ask that you learn to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. It's all very easily explained - from the voice of Jesus you respond to, to the religious awe you feel in contemplating your god. It's all physical and you can find the facts, should you choose to do so.

You won't find the truth on an internet message board, but you might if you open your eyes for a second or two along life's journey.

And note my first Orwell quote - it applies equally to religion as The Party

However much you convince yourself otherwise, atheism has a shakier position than religion. There are no stories of how we are here that is proved by science, and the idea of a big bang that is undirected is ludicrous. Christianity (and possibly other religions, though I am not familiar with their beliefs) has more evidence, historical and scientific than atheism. The fossil record shows no evidence of darwinism and "halfway fossils", while it does show evidence of species appearing, seemingly out of nowhere, then vanishing (as from a flood). Considering this, however difficult you find believing in a "big sky-daddy", you might consider making a Pascal style gambit.
And a question; was Orwell an atheist?

[RobinHood3000]

Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens

Yes, no halfway fossils whatsoever.


The idea of a Big Bang is only ludicrous to those who don't understand what they're laughing at. The Big Bang was not undirected - science in its present form simply has no means of explaining it. And if evidence existed to support Christianity, it would cease to be a religion. Religion, by its nature, exists on faith and cannot be proven.

[cuppajoe_9]

And a question; was Orwell an atheist?

Orwell was ambivalent. Some see Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four as a parody of God, but that's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. What does it matter?

[Dante Wodehouse]

Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens are basically the same thing that lost hair and gained brain. What I am talking about are links from, say, reptiles to mammals for a fairly simple one, or reptiles to birds.
Also, the Big Bang is a scientific theory stating how the universe was created. If it is directed, then there is a god who existed outside of the universe. There is evidence to support Christianity (without evidence there is no purpose for chosing Christianity over other religions). The evidence does not absolutely confirm it and faith must take you where evidence doesn't, but suggestive evidence exists.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Orwell was ambivalent. Some see Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four as a parody of God, but that's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. What does it matter?

I'm just curious. Also, you cite him as being against religion (unless I miss your meaning), so I wondered if he was against religion.

[cuppajoe_9]

Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens are basically the same thing that lost hair and gained brain.

They evolved, in other words.

What I am talking about are links from, say, reptiles to mammals for a fairly simple one, or reptiles to birds.

Ask and ye shall recieve.

Also, the Big Bang is a scientific theory stating how the universe was created.

Nope. The Big Bang took place directly after the universe was created.

There is evidence to support Christianity (without evidence there is no purpose for chosing Christianity over other religions). The evidence does not absolutely confirm it and faith must take you where evidence doesn't, but suggestive evidence exists.

I've yet to hear about it.

lso, you cite him as being against religion (unless I miss your meaning), so I wondered if he was against religion.

Nope, I never claimed Orwell was against religion. Imperialism, laissez-faire capitalism and Stalinism, yes; religion, I dunno.

[JBI]

Anyone else here find it quite humorous that atheists are the most feared group in America?

[Dante Wodehouse]

They evolved, in other words.

There is a difference between simple changes and the creation of an organ. Biologists have yet to explain how organs have been created.

Ask and ye shall recieve.

The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.

Nope. The Big Bang took place directly after the universe was created.

How was the universe created then?

I've yet to hear about it.

Have you been looking?

Nope, I never claimed Orwell was against religion. Imperialism, laissez-faire capitalism and Stalinism, yes; religion, I dunno.

Sorry, that was The Atheist.

[cuppajoe_9]

Anyone else here find it quite humorous that atheists are the most feared group in America?

I think that serial killers, terrorists and used car salesmen are still ahead of us, but yes, it's fairly amusing. And quite sad.

[cuppajoe_9]

There is a difference between simple changes and the creation of an organ. Biologists have yet to explain how organs have been created.

That is quite simply false. This is what biologists spend most of their time doing. Pick any organ you like and look it up.

The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.

Those links listed a few more creatures than the archeopteryx.

How was the universe created then?

I haven't the foggiest idea. That certainly doesn't mean that I have to accept your idea, however.

Have you been looking?

Yes.

[RobinHood3000]

The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.

Natural selection at work, then?

[billyjack]

How was the universe created then
.

who says it was created? maybe the answer eludes us because the question itself is silly. . .

[The Atheist]

However much you convince yourself otherwise, atheism has a shakier position than religion.

Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Ask an NSA scientist if you don't want to take my word for it.

There are no stories of how we are here that is proved by science, and the idea of a big bang that is undirected is ludicrous.

Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Hell, I guess it would look like that if you thought a sky-fairy had coughed it all out or whatever he did to get it brought into being - clearly far more logical - after all, it says so in the bible.

Christianity (and possibly other religions, though I am not familiar with their beliefs) has more evidence, historical and scientific than atheism.

Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Atheism pre-dates christianity, for starters.

The fossil record shows no evidence of darwinism and "halfway fossils",

Outright lie. Follow the links I gave earlier.

... while it does show evidence of species appearing, seemingly out of nowhere,

Outright lie.

...then vanishing (as from a flood).

Yet another lie.

Considering this, however difficult you find believing in a "big sky-daddy", you might consider making a Pascal style gambit.

When attempting to argue a point with me, it is imperative to at least know a little about the sucject matter in hand.

You clearly missed that bus, because all of your assertions made above are completely and irretrievably false. I certainly can't disprove god, nor do I particularly want to, but I can refute all of your pseudo-arguments anytime.

And a question; was Orwell an atheist?

No, firstly, he was far too consumed with this world to worry about the next, but his position was clearly agnostic. His position on religion was essentially the same as his opinion on Public Schools - bad idea, essential to survival of the human [English] spirit.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Religion is outright and claims to require faith, where as atheism appears to rely on science, but has no replacement for religion.

Baseless and incorrect assertion.


Hell, I guess it would look like that if you thought a sky-fairy had coughed it all out or whatever he did to get it brought into being - clearly far more logical - after all, it says so in the bible.

Again, atheism claims to rely on logic but requires faith to deny faith, whereas religion states that it is based on faith.

Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Atheism pre-dates christianity, for starters.

You might want to find another response than 'Baseless and incorrect assertion'. What took place before what is neither here nor their.

Outright lie. Follow the links I gave earlier.

I did, and I responded to the old archeopterix, which appears to come from nowhere (except the distantly related dinosaurs) and go to nowhere in the evolutionary chain. If you have seen it, it can't have survived long. If it flew, it didn't fly well.

Outright lie.

See 'Cambrian Explosion'.

Yet another lie.

The flood part may have been baseless, but look at the dinosaurs. Some meteor or something completely removed them and mammals became dominant directly afterwards.

When attempting to argue a point with me, it is imperative to at least know a little about the sucject matter in hand.

You clearly missed that bus, because all of your assertions made above are completely and irretrievably false. I certainly can't disprove god, nor do I particularly want to, but I can refute all of your pseudo-arguments anytime.

You might try to prove me wrong using information, rather than 'outright lie' and 'Baseless and incorrect assertion.'[/QUOTE]