Atheists in America

LOL LOL LOL...Im sorry but I keep laughing at you because you dont seem to get or understand so much of what is right in front of you.

You use Frank Herbert as a signature quote in several of your posts.

You do know that the Dune series of books are religion passing itself off as science fiction...right?? YOu do also know that much of Si Fi is religious in nature if you understand certain patterns? You do know this right??

I include the Star Wars series and also expecially the Matrix series. Same with 2001 and 2010 the space oddessy series.

When you read Frank Herberts book "The Hellstrom Hive" and you know what the beehive principle is in religion it becomes obvious as to what are the religious beliefs of Frank Herbert.

Dont worry..this is also way over the heads of many Christians too. Most of them wont catch it in a hundred years of thinking. Your safe with most of them.

By the way..once again ...do you know the name of the god of Frank Herbert?? I am very curious about your answer on this one.

You do know that 2001 and 2010 are church sermons? The black blocks were the si fi version of god...the big black block. In the end of 2010 the god...begets other gods...the big black block begets other black blocks. God begetting other gods. This is a standard religious dogma in certain religions....gods begetting gods.
These videos are a religious sermon.

Do you know any religions which worship a big black block?? It is not what most people today would think.

Do you know what the name of this religion is Madnessinmysoul?? Also if you know the name of this religion do you also know the name of the god??

It is just very ironic to see you use Frank Herbert as your signature statement. I did not catch this with the readings of your first posts.

Thanks again for your posts,
Orangetom

Originally posted by EssedariusI don't entertain the others any more than I entertain the infinite amount of disasters that could befall me and mine when I walk out my front door in the morning.

I am discussing the possibility of Atheism on this board because I want to understand other's points of view, not because I believe it for a moment.

But if you don't even believe that atheism is a possibility, then the wager is moot.

Pascal didn't LAZILY PRESUME dick...Pascal explored the probable outcomes in a situation where there are only TWO variables. GOD (Yes, No) and BELIEVER (yes, no).

He made far more presumptions than that, and didn't bother to justify them. Hence, I say he did so lazily.

He himself admitted (maybe LAZILY, I don't know) that he never intended for the "wager" to be a rock-solid theological platform. He said he hoped it would simply get people to consider the ramifications of their beliefs during a time when not many people were doing that.

But all of his presumptions assume that, even if theists aren't right about God, they are still pretty much right about everything else (for example, that atheists can never be truly fulfilled). Pascal's Wager starts with the assumption that the theistic life (whether God exists or not) is more valuable than an atheistic on. Pacal's Wager has nothing to offer anyone who doesn't already agree with its conclusion.

So I guess, Pascal would clap his hands and say SUPER if an Imam argued the same way.

I doubt it. For every religion that could "argue the same way," the Christian's chances of cashing in on their wager decrease. For example, if an Imam can argue the same way, then the Christian's chances become 1/3 instead of 1/2. Once again, the chances of the Christian winning the wager are 1/n where n equals the number of possibilitires. Pascal's Wager assumes that n equals 2; however, if any other religion can argue the same way, then this assumption is false.

I've known, pretty intimately, people who have operated on that very assumption, and not a single one would tell me that they feel fulfilled. Personally, I think it's ridiculous for you to imply that one could really improve their life with some good lies, whores, and murders.

Nor is that a necessary component of what I was saying. Of course there are things that are forbidden in Christianity (like murder) that wouldn't be conducive to a happy life if you did them. There are others, however, that Christianity forbids which (at least my opinion) could bring happiness. For example, being able to marry someone you love, even if they aren't a Christian.

Again, have you tried being a dishonest adultering murderer? That lifestyle is not exactly family friendly, is it?

Of course not. Then again, of all the atheists I know, I don't know a single dishonest adultering murderer.

Pascal's Wager makes EXACTLY the point it was intended to make:

Living a life without any regard for what comes next does not offer enough benefits to outweigh the risks.

These are all part of Pascal's original assumptions, he doesn't actually go about providing proof for them. He starts with the assumption that the theistic life (whether God exists or not) is more fulfilling than an atheistic one, and concludes with much the same notion. Pascal's Wager only "makes a point" if you already agree with his conclusions. It doesn't actually offer any reason for any non-Christian to ascribe to his assumptions.

He starts with the assumption that the theistic life is always more fulfilling than the atheistic one, and uses that to reach his conclusion that a theistic life is more desirable, no matter what the truth is. His conclusion and his assumptions are functionally identical. Thus, no "point" is made. Pascal's Wager doesn't serve to convince anyone at all, it just serves to elaborate on unsupported conjecture.

He made far more presumptions than that, and didn't bother to justify them. Hence, I say he did so lazily.

Providence, you are clearly a well educated and well spoken individual.

You have voted Providence for the Way Above Top Secret award.

For all I know you are an absolute genius Fields Medal winning mathematician. Me personally, I’m kind of an amateur philosopher and math geek, but I do know this:

Staggering mathematical minds such as that possessed by Blaise Pascal don’t really go about anything lazily.

I see your points about the n amounts of outcomes truncated to two and unaddressed presumptions and justifications. I do. I get that. But, and I think you have to agree here, there can only be three reasons for these shortcomings:

1)
Pascal was lazy and wasn’t willing to expend the energy it would take to swim in the deep philosophical waters of a full-fledged theological argument.

2)
Pascal simply didn’t see that there were deeper levels to the argument and penned his Wager out of ignorance.

3)
Pascal wasn’t looking to put forward an all-encompassing theological gameplan, but a very simple statement that might sprout into complex theological consideration for anyone who took the time to read it.


Again, I am not a historian or mathematician, but what little I know about Pascal as a man and scholar makes options (1) and (2) patently absurd.

I feel like you are discussing the Wager in terms of things that it was simply not meant to achieve…like criticizing a car because it doesn’t make a good airplane.

Pascal’s bottom line (maybe…what the hell do I know) seems to be that he does believe that a life led according to Christianity will be a happier life than one led without it. And I would agree with that.

Of course there are things that are forbidden in Christianity (like murder) that wouldn't be conducive to a happy life if you did them. There are others, however, that Christianity forbids which (at least my opinion) could bring happiness. For example, being able to marry someone you love, even if they aren't a Christian.

Honestly, I can’t tell you exactly what the Bible says about inter-faith marriage…but I totally believe that marrying someone who shares your theological beliefs increases your chances for a happy marriage. As a rule, these beliefs shape your world view, dictate how you deal with adversity, how you celebrate, how you deal with the outside world. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say that an Atheist would have a better marriage with a fellow Atheist than they would with a Christian…not to say that happy inter-faith marriages aren’t possible…we’re simply talking about probability here remember.

I’ll keep my stance on this one and say that I really do believe that an life led according to the moral platform of a theology does give you the greatest opportunity at happiness.

So Atheists CONVERT, right?!?

It’s here that I will concede an important point…

Originally posted by Providence
But if you don't even believe that atheism is a possibility, then the wager is moot.

And therein lies the only (in my opinion) legitimate and inarguable attack on Pascal’s wager:

It implies that you can simply choose what to believe.

Regrettably, beliefs are not like freeway onramps where you can just hit your blinker and join in. I can say to an Atheist “Believe in God, it will really make your life better”, and even if they absolutely agree, how are they supposed to change? Reach back to the little toggle switch on the back of their necks and switch it from Atheist to Theist? Beliefs don’t work like that. They are developed over time, and in very complex and uncontrollable ways.

I think what Pascal was getting at though (and what I believe as well), is that if you open your mind to the concept of God…if you actively search for his presence, that you will see Him. And all Pascal’s Wager is saying is that logically, it’s really worth giving it a shot.

Shiva H Vishnu.
If one thing's become clear to me over the CNN report and this entire thread, it's that atheists have become the new nig...

er, um, atheists have become the new black people.

Fathers across the country are yelling at their daughters, "you're dating a what? I won't have that stain upon my family."

How do you stop five atheists from raping a christian girl?
Throw them a basketball

Did you ever notice that there are no atheists in The Jetsons?
The future looks bright

Why does Stevie Wonder smile all the time?
He doesn't know he's an atheist.

What does an atheist get for christmas?
Your bicycle

What's the definition of atheist foreplay?
Don't scream or I'll kill you

What do you call an atheist with no arms?
Trustworthy

What do you say to an atheist in a suit?
Will the defendant please rise

What's the difference between Batman and an atheist?
Batman can go to the store without Robin

How can you tell if an atheist has been on your computer?
Your computer's gone

What do you call a christian surrounded by atheists?
Warden

I could go on but I gotta go,
I'll be here all year, please tip your moderator.

One thing you cannot call atheists is hypocritical. We don't espouse virtuous behavior under the protection of a god and then practice the opposite.

Haggard (sodomizer)
Swaggart (adulterer)
Catholic priests (sodomizers)
JFK (adulterer)
Bush Jr. (murderer)
...and the list goes on and on...

Atheists own their behavior. People who believe in gods hide behind them.

[edit on 2/9/2007 by Landis]

Originally posted by Landis
Atheists own their behavior. People who believe in gods hide behind them.

I think that this statement can be accurately applied to many many instances. However, just like anything, I'm sure many examples could also be provided to the contrary...which is why it's probably better to avoid such sweeping stereotypes.

One thing you cannot call atheists is hypocritical. We don't espouse virtuous behavior under the protection of a god and then practice the opposite.

Of course not. The fact that you literally don't espouse virtuous behavior under the protection of a god means that it is absolutely impossible for you to practice the opposite.

That would be like me bragging that I've NEVER been bucked off a bull...when I've never attempted to ride one.

I'm not saying that Atheists are horrible people with no morals...I simply don't think it's legitimate for them to brag about not being theological hypocrites.

Originally posted by Essedarius...I simply don't think it's legitimate for them to brag about not being theological hypocrites...

The point is that we don't hide behind a belief or institution. We don't have the luxury of misbehaving, then receiving forgiveness via a personal belief.

We own what we do, make no excuses, invoke no great protectors.

Being responsible without the "safety net" is very liberating.

Originally posted by Landis

Originally posted by Essedarius...I simply don't think it's legitimate for them to brag about not being theological hypocrites...

The point is that we don't hide behind a belief or institution. We don't have the luxury of misbehaving, then receiving forgiveness via a personal belief.

We own what we do, make no excuses, invoke no great protectors.

Being responsible without the "safety net" is very liberating.

Landis...you went to public school right?? Never quite got over it??

This is sophistry. Responsibility is responsibility..it is never liberating....it is responsibility..it is never ...Optional. Responsibility is a load..a burden..work...thats why it is responsibility. It is not status.

Your statement however does make good politic and as is often done in sophistry.

Essedarius does make some good points in thier posts.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999...This is sophistry. Responsibility is responsibility..it is never liberating....it is responsibility..it is never ...Optional. Responsibility is a load..a burden..work...thats why it is responsibility. It is not status.

Your statement however does make good politic and as is often done in sophistry.

Essedarius does make some good points in thier posts...

So, it is also illegal at ATS to speak the truth about one's own thoughts and feelings.

There is no sophistry involved in my attitudes about myself. I am a responsible human being. I don't view that as a burden. I view it as a necessary part of the human experience.

If you want to insult me, why not do so in more direct language. That's what U2U's are for.

Edit: I forgot to address the statement about why I find my atheism liberating. I am a slave only to what I choose to be a slave to. No gods direct my choices. That is a freedom no theist has.

[edit on 2/9/2007 by Landis]

Originally posted by orangetom1999
This is sophistry.

For the record, I had to look this word up and I’m still not exactly sure what the hell it means…which is kind of metasophistry I guess.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Responsibility is responsibility..it is never liberating....it is responsibility..it is never ...Optional.

When I moved out of my parent’s home, accepting a level of responsibility that I didn’t necessarily need to take on, I found it to be quite liberating. I disagree with your logic almost as much as I disagree with your condescending tone. (Did I hear a shot at public schools in there…?)

Essedarius does make some good points in thier posts.

With all due respect, orangetom, we’re not sure we want your endorsement.

But I digress…

Originally posted by Landis I am a slave only to what I choose to be a slave to. No gods direct my choices. That is a freedom no theist has.

Let me ask a sincere question Landis (…and to any Atheist who has an opinion)…do you choose to be a slave to what would typically be considered “moral” decisions such as “I won’t steal from somebody”, “I won’t lie”, “I won’t treat people poorly”? If so, why? That is to say, what is the origin of your “moral necessities” in your opinion?

Does that question make sense? I’m not sure it does…