Atheists have no answers

*waves at peter vlar*

Hey there.

So, August 21st - the total eclipse of the sun. Like, the thing that only happens once every several thousand years......
when the moon is PRECISELY at the correct distance and trajectory to block out the sun. A disc in the sky covering another disc in the sky. We will be able to see the 'corona', though --- and happily, I live IN THE ZONE where it will actually turn night-time black aside from the 'corona' (the gas atmosphere of the sun).

This was the stuff of hysterical worship and imagined 'portent'. And we're going to have it here in a couple months!! And people are actually getting hotel rooms, and they're planning festivals, and Mr Wigs and I have both filed for the day off ---- so we can drive out of this city and to where there are no lights for miles and miles and miles and miles.....

and it will be a tremendous day. Haven't heard if Westboro's planning on being there, but I doubt it.






Cuz, we know it's just science. And planetary alignment, and gravity, and light years and all that stuff. We still don't know everything, but dammit, we DO know that this eclipse is not some "god vengeance."

originally posted by: randyvs
What you have in every vid here is the undeniable testimony/answers/
truth to my world view. Where is yours Richard Dawkins?

Richard Dawkins is not a priest of atheism. He is an atheist and scientist with a set of beliefs and happens to be vocal about them. That doesn't mean he is right or that all atheists agree with him or follow every word he says though.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Christianity is mythology; believe what you want as it is your right but I'm just calling it as I see it.

What part of mythology is backed by Scholars and Professors?
You didn't watch any of the vids provided did you? All have to do
is sit there and watch.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Richard Dawkins is not a priest of atheism. He is an atheist and scientist with a set of beliefs and happens to be vocal about them. That doesn't mean he is right or that all atheists agree with him or follow every word he says though.

But nearly all take to his bigotry. And most of all he is an author
of lies.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I will attempt to define it when you answer some of the questions I have asked.

Do you have someone in your life that loves you?

I have family members who do, yes, but no significant other or children.

Do you feel that that love is something more than a chemical reaction?

Nope. I see no reason to see it as anything else.

If yes, then what evidence do you have of that? If no, then I'm truly sorry for you and we will likely never find common ground.

How about you tell me what evidence YOU see for there being more to love than just a chemical reaction in the brain?

And furthermore, now that I have answered your questions you'll define what "evidence" means to you, correct?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Richard Dawkins is not a priest of atheism. He is an atheist and scientist with a set of beliefs and happens to be vocal about them. That doesn't mean he is right or that all atheists agree with him or follow every word he says though.

But nearly all take to his bigotry. And most of all he is an author
of lies.

I don't care what you think about RD. This thread isn't about Dawkins. It's about atheism. Dawkins != atheism.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dawkins is right there in the OP bro! Did you even read it?

Richard Dawkins is not a priest of atheism.

I think he is bigtime.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's because you are pitching a strawman here. Atheism isn't a belief system! It doesn't set out to explain things or answer questions. It is merely JUST a position on belief in god.

You make it sound as tho taking any position is correct?

Consider the historicity/truth of the Bible? Many atheists akin it to fairy
tales don't they?

Perhaps you can tell me why atheists would rather believe in the truth
of fairytales than the historicity of the Bible?

The talking ass is even in there.

I don't think there is anyone's that disputes that there are references to real historical places, a few people and a handful of events that appear in 2nd Temple(post Babylonian exile) scripture and even in the ant.

The flipside to that is that there are far more incongruities and inaccuracies. One example is cities and towns that didn't exist until after the 1st century yet are depicted in NT scripture. Interestingly, the oldest manuscripts located for those books don't appear until the 3nd or 3rd Century st a time when those towns did exist. It's certainly not proof but it should give one pause for a moment enough to question the veracity of the documents in question.

The largest hurdle for me with the Bible is that people say "The Bible" as if it is one singular book used universally by all of Christianity. I've got a King James Version and an NIV version on the bookshelf 10 feet from me in my living room. I've got an 80 or 90 year old bible that was my grandmothers and was in use back when all Catholic Mass was still performed in Latin (and yes, I vividly recall your thoughts on my catholic upbringing. But, that was when you and I weren't very friendly with one another so I don't hold it against you!) and none of the 3 are exact copies of each other. And those are the ones i personally own.

There are literally dozens of versions of "The Bible" out there today and each and every one of them is slightly different than the others. And that doesn't even touch on how different groups interpret the Bible and how they go back and forth debating which of them are the real or true chrisstians. And then there's the part where a large number of Paul's Epistles are either heavily edited after the fact or they are outright forgeries based on the grammatical errors.

And the final huge issue I have with "The Bible" is that what you are all reading today, is variations on what a Council of 300 men meeting at Laodicea decided they liked and worked best for the political climate in Rome at the tail end of the 4th century CE. They purposely excluded scores of "apocryphal scripture" simply because it didn't jive with the message they were trying to spread a time the time. That's not the divinely inspired word of god when a religious holy book is voted on in such a fashion.

Don't get me wrong Randy, I think the message of Christ is a beautiful one. And there's is some lovely poetry, particularly in the Psalms. But proof of a singular, omnipotent entity (who seems to be 2 very different entities comparing OT to NT) I'm not seeing it. And I was a true believer who was a hairs breadth away from entering seminary nearly 30 years ago.

What first made me question things was that when I stopped reading only specific portions to better understand the message of that data mass and read ALL of it to gain proper context, I found that there were a great number of inconsistencies in the scripture. Some portions were entirely antithetical to others. Even at a young age I understood that were the Christian, all powerful and all knowing god really behind these books, then he would not have contradicted himself over 100 times!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Prior to attempting to establish a personal relationship with an higher power I was having trouble with personal relationships, I couldn’t control my emotional nature, I was prey to misery and depression, I couldn’t make a living, I had a feeling of uselessness, I was full of fear, I was unhappy, I couldn’t seem to be of real help to other people. Basically, I was self-will run riot and utterly miserable as a result.

Since the merest attempt at establishing this relationship I know a new freedom and a new happiness. I do not regret the past nor wish to shut the door on it. I comprehend the word serenity and I know peace. I can see how my experience can benefit others. That feeling of uselessness and self pity disappeared. I lost interest in selfish things and gained interest in my fellows. Self-seeking slipped away. My whole attitude and outlook upon life changed. Fear of people and of economic insecurity left me. I intuitively know how to handle situations which used to baffle me. I suddenly realized that my higher power was doing for me what we could not do for myself.

That is the evidence of which I speak. I'm sure you will find it unpersuasive. I wish you the best of luck finding a truly fulfilling chemical reaction.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dawkins is right there in the OP bro! Did you even read it?

Richard Dawkins is not a priest of atheism.

I think he is bigtime.

So this thread is about whatever you feel like then and not about atheism? Because I'm trying to patiently describe what atheism is and you keep throwing red herrings and strawmen at me. I understand where you are coming from as a Christian too. You have a set of beliefs so you expect the anathema to your religion to also be a set of beliefs, but it isn't. Atheism isn't a codified set of beliefs. It's just the absence of belief in a god or deity. There are no priests of this belief because it isn't a religion. It's just a belief.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Richard Dawkins is not a priest of atheism. He is an atheist and scientist with a set of beliefs and happens to be vocal about them. That doesn't mean he is right or that all atheists agree with him or follow every word he says though.

But nearly all take to his bigotry. And most of all he is an author
of lies.

Personally, and I know many others who feel the same, Dawkins is the worst thing to happen to Atheists and Agnostics in a long time. He aggressive and overly abrasive. As a zoologist, he was top of his fame. As a supposed philosopher and self anointed figurehead of Atheism, he makes many other look equally reprehensible based solely on a philosophical association. Judge me for my beliefs, not because someone else claims similar beliefs. It's like me loathing all of Christianity because of the WBC.

a reply to: peter vlar

Again PV your post is a welcome one. You always write from obvious great
knowledge. I've been expecting you. I'll need a little time to give a decent
retort as your replys always deserve respectfully.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Prior to attempting to establish a personal relationship with an higher power I was having trouble with personal relationships, I couldn’t control my emotional nature, I was prey to misery and depression, I couldn’t make a living, I had a feeling of uselessness, I was full of fear, I was unhappy, I couldn’t seem to be of real help to other people. Basically, I was self-will run riot and utterly miserable as a result.

Since the merest attempt at establishing this relationship I know a new freedom and a new happiness. I do not regret the past nor wish to shut the door on it. I comprehend the word serenity and I know peace. I can see how my experience can benefit others. That feeling of uselessness and self pity disappeared. I lost interest in selfish things and gained interest in my fellows. Self-seeking slipped away. My whole attitude and outlook upon life changed. Fear of people and of economic insecurity left me. I intuitively know how to handle situations which used to baffle me. I suddenly realized that my higher power was doing for me what we could not do for myself.

I went through a similar transformation but it involved recreational drugs instead, but I'm not going to elucidate further than that because of T&C's. If you are curious U2U me.

That is the evidence of which I speak. I'm sure you will find it unpersuasive. I wish you the best of luck finding a truly fulfilling chemical reaction.

Who says I'm unfulfilled? I'm actually happier and more content with my life than ever, and as I get older that feeling grows. I don't need to delude myself that a god exists to reach this happiness either. I just set my expectations accordingly and I know that if something needs to change -I- have to be the catalyst for that change. I can't expect god to do it for me, so that serves to motivate me to be the change I desire.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So this thread is about whatever you feel like then and not about atheism? Because I'm trying to patiently describe what atheism is and you keep throwing red herrings and strawmen at me. I understand where you are coming from as a Christian too. You have a set of beliefs so you expect the anathema to your religion to also be a set of beliefs, but it isn't. Atheism isn't a codified set of beliefs. It's just the absence of belief in a god or deity. There are no priests of this belief because it isn't a religion. It's just a belief.

You seem to be dodging bullets. It's just a belief with no truth or history
to back it up? is that what you're saying? If that's it I agree.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson and all others with this proof.

Okay lets say you are in touch with a higher power.

You can have absolutely no idea who or what that higher power is.

Some say it is God, some Yahweh, Allah, Ganesh, Satan, aliens....... so if all these religions have the same proof then surely this disproves all of them as they all claim absolute higher power authority.

If a Christian can use this as proof of their god then surely they must accept the same proof from somebody who believes in another or other gods, who claims to have the same relationship with their higher power/god.

Again all religions have their miracles but why would a 'Islamic god' grant christian, judaic, hindu, buddhist miracle and vice versa?

If we accept that people do have these relationships across the world then it leaves one obvious answer ALL the religions have it wrong.
Remember most of them are/were used as tools to control the masses and therefore their words of truth are twisted to serve those who seek power and control.

If people who believe would just dump the petty organisations that run religion and have a direct ONE on ONE relationship with their creator/s,higher power/s and leave it at that the world would be a much happier/better place.

a reply to: randyvs
That's actually true. Atheism is a relatively new idea in the historical lexicon. Sure there were religious disbelievers in the past, but they mostly just disbelieved the majority religion and many times were religious for a minority religion in the area. But atheism or the idea that you don't believe in any gods as a defined term is only a recent invention.

There isn't much history behind it, but there doesn't need to be history behind a good idea. An idea doesn't need to be ancient to be compelling to adhere to and follow.

a reply to: randyvs

What do you mean "no truth or history to back it up"? Atheists simply lack a belief in a deity. So basically that means most of them don't care. If God exists then ok fine. Nothing to do with the lack of belief.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Recreational drugs are what lead me to this decision.

I certainly never said you or anyone else is unfulfilled. I don't demand anyone to think as I think or act as I act. Even my own kids have very different belief systems than I do. Nothing on this thread that I posted was meant to proselytize. I was just expressing my opinion and asking questions. I admit that I'm not a fan of being called "delusional" or being in need of a crutch though I once thought that way myself. I wish you, and all, the best of health and happiness.

I've made plenty of mistakes in my life and certainly wouldn't want anyone to follow my path. I found peace and happiness in my own way. I'm pretty sure we all have our own paths to follow and I don't want to be a snag on anyone else's path.

a reply to: johnb

Remember most of them are/were used as tools to control the masses and therefore their words of truth are twisted to serve those who seek power and control.

But this is just zietgiest if you apply it to Christianity. Christianity thru out
history has always been abolished and hated by those who vie control.
They even tried to control the resurrection by placing the roman guard
at Josephs tomb. To no avail.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Recreational drugs are what lead me to this decision.

Well here's apparently the difference between you and I. I don't think drugs are a gateway to a higher power even if they make you feel incredible and divinely attached.

Though I can make many arguments on how drugs can change your brain chemistry to value different things or to be content more easily. This is how scientists are discovering that you can use hallucinogens or ecstasy to treat PTSD. Those substances will change your brain chemistry after using them. Usually to mellow the person out.

I certainly never said you or anyone else is unfulfilled. I don't demand anyone to think as I think or act as I act. Even my own kids have very different belief systems than I do. Nothing on this thread that I posted was meant to proselytize. I was just expressing my opinion and asking questions. I admit that I'm not a fan of being called "delusional" or being in need of a crutch though I once thought that way myself. I wish you, and all, the best of health and happiness.

I've made plenty of mistakes in my life and certainly wouldn't want anyone to follow my path. I found peace and happiness in my own way. I'm pretty sure we all have our own paths to follow and I don't want to be a snag on anyone else's path.

I'm not here to call you delusional. I just want to see people's reasoning path to get to the conclusions about a higher power they have reached. Ex-atheists are always interesting conversations because I want to understand what led them to make the jump. Mostly I find that these atheists were usually atheists due to a lack of exposure to religion and not so much because they analyzed religion first and found it wanting. Though I don't want to make assumptions either. Hence why I asked what your definition of evidence is. To me. Anecdotal evidence and even my own memory are unreliable sources of evidence. I want hard data instead.