As much as this country touts a separation of church and state; the fact is that much of the state is an extension of the church.
Marriage and divorce are RELIGIOUS things -- that have been undertaken by the state. A great many laws have their origins in commonly held religious views, etc.
Sans religion, people would have to develop entirely new rationales for explaining why stealing is wrong, or why we shouldn't just have pure "survival of the fittest."
does exist in your philosophy of atheism; then what is the purpose of your soul? Where does the soul go after you die?
In your philosophy of atheism does love exist?
Your answers:
1) There is no soul. Especially in your case I am quite sure of it.
2) Obviously, since there is no soul there can be no purpose.
3) See answer #2.
4) I love myself. I do not love you. You can feel any damn thing you want and call it whatever-the-fuck you want. But the existance of love has no connection to the concept of a soul. Believe me, I know this because I made it up. And if my existance confuses you re the whole "soul" thing, we'll that's not my problem. Now, piss off. But feel free to pray to me. I find that very funny.
...God thinks & does....man he likes to fuck w/us.
But hey, it's his universe & he created it, mine would be far worse if I was God to be perfectly honest. 
I said there is no god. Religion is clearly real and tangible as are human emotions. There need not be a god for all of the things that you mentioned to exist. Humans invented the concept of god to explain things that were confusing to them. It is also good concept to have handy if you need to live in a group of more than 100 people.
up, does the soul exist? What is the purpose of the soul? Does love exist? What happens after you die?
I am attempting to have a conversation with you but obviously you do not have a grasp of your own philosophy of atheism; other than to say "there is no god" [sic].
-- Modified on 5/23/2011 6:17:13 PM
They are both words that mean different things to different people. The word god has the same meaning for everyone. There is no god.
interested if an atheist also believes in the existence of the soul. I am interested how atheist explains the purpose of life, death etc. Everytime I ask these simple questions I receive idiotic repetitive answers such as "there is no god"[sic]. These answers are unintelligible and useless.
And the definition of the soul you seek is...?
If I doubt the existence of one non corporeal entity, why would I assume the existence of another non corporeal entity?
PROOF that JESUS is real without using religion
Did Jesus Exist?
thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
In this section, we will examine 1st and 2nd century sources which verify Jesus
as an actual man of history (not a compilation of pagan myths as some critics
allege). Each of the following sections offer their own advantages: the
non-Christian sources are important as they had nothing to gain by their
admissions. On the other hand, the Christian witness had everything to lose-
many paying for their testimony with their lives.
The outline we will be following for this discussion is as follows:
1) Secular Sources (Documentary)
2) Secular Sources (Commentary)
3) Jewish Sources (Non-Christian)
4) Extra-Biblical Sources (Christian)
5) Answering Common Skeptic Questions Concerning Jesus' existence
6) Conclusion
http://vimeo.com/10976448
Non Biblical evidence as proof for Jesus Christ (1,2,3,4 of 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqlFkGaDV_M&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qUcXXbde4w&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGb3pOq8ihc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through
the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome,
Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from
26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.
"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the
reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44
What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:
Jesus did exist
Jesus was the founder of Christianity
Jesus was put to death by Pilate
Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)
Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)
Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources?
Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus
referenced government records over Christian testimony. It is also possible Tacitus received some of his
information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some
of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical investigation. An example of
Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus
distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of
Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.
Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?
Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as
a superstition and insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does
not contain this passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.
Skeptic Interjection: Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers?
Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not
have quoted such a source (assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual
answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was
not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not
debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.
Skeptic Interjection: Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability?
Answer: No. Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator:
"But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea... Antiquities XVIII, 3:1
"Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2
"Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology XII
It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that Tacitus was either using an anachronism for
the sake of clarity or, since Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held
both positions.
GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded
the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official
under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews
from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2) and confirms the Christian faith being founded by Christ.
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from
Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4
Skeptic Interjection: Because Suetonius misspells Christus as Chrestus, is it possible he was referring to
someone else?
Answer: Because Chrestus was an actual Greek name, critics speculate Suetonius may have been referring to a
specific civil agitator. I would like to present a few arguments as to why I feel this is a reference to Jesus. In
order to get as close to the author's intent as possible, this is the passage as it exists in the original Latin:
"Iudaeos (The Jews) impulsore (the instigation) Chresto (Chrestus) assidue (upon) tumultuantis
(making a disturbance) Roma (Rome) expulit (were expelled)."
Suetonius seems to imply the word Chrestus as a title- not as a reference to a particular rebel. Though I
have seen critics cite the passage as "a certain/one Chrestus" we can see this is incorrect by the lack of
the word quodam in the original Latin.
Suetonius uses the word instigation- not instigator. The Latin word referring to an instigator is impulsor but
the term referring to an instigation is impusore- and this is the word Suetonius uses, thus affirming the
belief he is using the word Chrestus as a title and not as a name.
It was common for both pagan and Christian authors to spell the name using either an e or an i- and we
know the Christian authors were obviously referring to Jesus when they spelled the name as Chrestus.
Tertullian criticises pagan disdain for Christianity and points out the fact they can't even spell the name
correctly. He implies the common misspelling of Chrestus by their use of the term Chrestians: "Most
people so blindly knock their heads against the hatred of the Christian name...It is wrongly pronounced
by you as "Chrestians" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate)... But the special
ground of dislike to the sect is, that it bears the name of its Founder." Apology, Chapter III
We also see Justin Martyr (a Christian apologist, nonetheless!) using the incorrect spelling of Chrestian.
First Apology IV
Lactantius repeats the lament of Tertullian with his statement, "But the meaning of this name must be set
forth, on account of the error of the ignorant who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him
Chrestus." Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
Chrestus was a Greco-Roman slave name but Suetonius tells us "foreigners" were not allowed to adopt
such names. Knowing the Jews were a close-knit community, the idea of them following the revolt of a
gentile slave to such an extent to get them (and only them!) expelled from Rome is quite a stretch.
Skeptic Interjection: How could this passage refer to Jesus. He was never said to have travelled to Rome.
Answer: If Chrestus does refer to a title and not a specific name (as we are asserting), there is no need for Him
to have been in Rome. A leader can still be "an instigator" for a cause without being in the vicinity. There are
many causes that survived long after the lives of those who initiated certain movements.
THALLUS (~ 52 A.D.) Although his works exist only in fragments, Julius Africanus debates Thallus' explanation
of the midday darkness which occurred during the Passover of Jesus' crucifixion. Thallus tries to dismiss the
darkness as a natural occurrence (a solar eclipse) but Africanus argues (and any astronomer can confirm) a
solar eclipse cannot physically occur during a full moon due to the alignment of the planets. Phlegon of Tralles, a
2nd century secular historian, also mentions the darkness and tries to dismiss it as a solar eclipse. He also states
the event occurred during the time of Tiberius Caesar.
http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
Parallels Between Jesus and Horus an Egyptian Sun God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ZMHOdLEuU
The car had three bumper stickers.
One was the word "tolerance" spelled out in religious symbols.
Another was the word "coexist" spelled out in religious symbols.
The third was the fish Christian symbol with legs on it, and the word "Darwin" where the word Jesus would usually go.
Here he was, preaching "coexistence" and "tolerance" and simultaneously shitting on many of the very beliefs he claims should be tolerated in order to coexist. A total, absolute dumbass.
Atheists can be just as bad as theists to the extent that they proselytize and try to shove their particular belief down everyone else's throat while being sanctimoniously self-righteous and believing themselves -- just by virtue of their belief rather than their deeds -- to be superior to those who believe differently.
Atheists can be just as bad as theists to the extent that they proselytize and try to shove their particular belief down everyone else's throat while being sanctimoniously self-righteous and believing themselves -- just by virtue of their belief rather than their deeds -- to be superior to those who believe differently.
So true. Though I do find Charlie to be humorous.
The real strident haters are funny too but for a different reason.
"Atheists can be just as bad as theists to the extent that they proselytize and try to shove their particular belief down everyone else's throat while being sanctimoniously self-righteous and believing themselves -- just by virtue of their belief rather than their deeds -- to be superior to those who believe differently."
I have no doubt that there are many atheists out there who are dumb shits, but aren't we leaving out the obvious? Evolution IS a superior belief to any religion. It's superior because it's TRUE.
Rather obvious, isn't it?
One thing a lot of folks have never looked at is something called "sentience quotient."
SQ runs from -70 to +50. Plants are generally around -1 to -3, and humans are generally around +13. It is a logarithmic scale. So any entity with an SQ of say 25 would be so much more sentient than us that we would seem as worthy of communication to such an entity as a dandelion seems to us; and we would be as capable of comprehending it as a dandelion is of comprehending us.
Because of our very self-centered orientation, then, the concept of deity -- something substantively more sentient than ourselves -- is quite literally beyond our grasp.
Whether such a thing exists or not, I have no way of knowing. I couldn't possibly have a frame of reference that would permit me such insight.
But -- absolutely -- if deity (or deities) exist, there is no reason why deity couldn't manifest its will through the laws of evolution, physics, etc. And, in fact, this is exactly what Newton expressed -- that the laws he was discovering were the product of the mind of deity.
Either way, I find the proselyte atheists tedious because they feel their belief makes them superior to others who hold other beliefs.
From a purely evolutionary perspective, that is garbage. You know why? Because religious people overall have more kids and thus spread their genes more successfully than atheists.
So it seems that evolution is selecting AGAINST atheistic beliefs -- proving that in a "survival of the fittest" endeavor, it is the atheist who are wanting. So they ought not be so smug.
Furthermore, there seems to be a genetic predisposition toward religiosity for some people. The existence of such a gene after the forges of evolution indicates that, at a bare minimum, religiosity is non-harmful; and it could even convey survival benefits. (Please see "The God Gene.")
So, yeah, we're in agreement.
If a deity is beyond our perception, and we have no way of collecting evidence that a deity exists, then why should we assume that one does exist?
Remember that atheists were more likely to be in the closet than to express their beliefs just a few years ago. They didn't begin to speak up until nutty Christians and Muslims decided it was a good idea to start another holy war.
When you get into issues of resource depletion, like we are now, regions that have the highest population densities may not be the ones who are most likely to survive.
There are good evolutionary reasons why some people are more religious than others. But it seems quite absurd to me that anyone could say that it is non-harmful. It's not a coincidence that the more religious a nation is, the poorer it is likely to be.
-- Modified on 5/23/2011 12:59:45 PM
known as the Euro Zone.
Talk about a dead man walking. Net out their debt and unfunded future liablilities and you have an excellent example of the difference between intellect and wisdom.
All Hail Lord John Maynard!
Now where's my printing press??
I didn't know that the EU was a nation state.
Let's look at this "failed" region.
EU GDP: $16.82 trillion
US GDP: $14.66 trillion
public liabilities.
I realize you'd like to avoid that subject.
How's that looking for ya now, Mr. Statman?
But they're smart, they'll figger it out.
Or riot.
Here's a tip, short the EURO. It's gonna explode.
LOL!
I have nothing to gain or loose by making you aware of this choice. Millions of human beings have a vested intrest in there being a god. Much culture , law and learning is based on the existence of god
and for there not to be a god would invalidate all of it; or would it? The implications are at least worth
thinking about.
As much as this country touts a separation of church and state; the fact is that much of the state is an extension of the church.
Marriage and divorce are RELIGIOUS things -- that have been undertaken by the state. A great many laws have their origins in commonly held religious views, etc.
Sans religion, people would have to develop entirely new rationales for explaining why stealing is wrong, or why we shouldn't just have pure "survival of the fittest."
I see it differently. I read it as here's all the tribes, we have to get along, and this is my tribe.
Nothing more.
If you interpret that as being shat upon, that's YOUR problem, not mine or the owner of the car.
One was the word "tolerance" spelled out in religious symbols.
Another was the word "coexist" spelled out in religious symbols.
The third was the fish Christian symbol with legs on it, and the word "Darwin" where the word Jesus would usually go.
Here he was, preaching "coexistence" and "tolerance" and simultaneously shitting on many of the very beliefs he claims should be tolerated in order to coexist. A total, absolute dumbass.
Atheists can be just as bad as theists to the extent that they proselytize and try to shove their particular belief down everyone else's throat while being sanctimoniously self-righteous and believing themselves -- just by virtue of their belief rather than their deeds -- to be superior to those who believe differently.