Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

[Pygoscelis]

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to show that moral compass exists.

That depends on how you define "moral compass". There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that empathy exists, both psychology research and neurology research.

Hence, there is no scientific evidence basis for the so called "golden rule."

Evidence for the golden rule? The "golden rule" is not a scientific theory or law. It is a moral concept. Look up mirror neurons. Notice how much we relate to each other. It is perfectly natural for us to wince at each other showing pain and to want to stop the suffering of others. This can even be observed in children. It isn't even unique to humans. It isn't caused by religion. In fact, one of the most reliable ways to override it is to differentiate yourself from the victim, in an us vs them type way of thinking, which religion is really good at. There is good reason why our political leaders "demonize" those they want us to go to war with.

Many men are violent (Conduct disorder etc), and that is because of neurohormonal imbalance in their brain. Imagine if most of humanity had this imbalance, violence would be the "golden rule." Such a fluctuating use-and-disuse morality is in the true sense not morality at all.

Says the guy who was once writing here how he wishes death on people.

Does anybody really think that religion, or Islam in particular, prevents people with such imbalance from turning violent? No, they just dress their hate and violence up in religious trappings. We have no shortage of hateful and violent religious folks. You will say they don't follow the true path of course, but they are still religious. If the violent use-and-disuse morality you speak of existed only in atheists then you'd have a point. But clearly it doesn't. Prisons are not exclusive to atheists, and in fact they aren't even all that prevalent there.

 

[CosmicPathos]

That depends on how you define "moral compass". There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that empathy exists, both psychology research and neurology research.



Evidence for the golden rule? The "golden rule" is not a scientific theory or law. It is a moral concept. Look up mirror neurons. Notice how much we relate to each other. It is perfectly natural for us to wince at each other showing pain and to want to stop the suffering of others. This can even be observed in children. It isn't even unique to humans. It isn't caused by religion. In fact, one of the most reliable ways to override it is to differentiate yourself from the victim, in an us vs them type way of thinking, which religion is really good at. There is good reason why our political leaders "demonize" those they want us to go to war with.



Says the guy who was once writing here how he wishes death on people.

Does anybody really think that religion, or Islam in particular, prevents people with such imbalance from turning violent? No, they just dress their hate and violence up in religious trappings. We have no shortage of hateful and violent religious folks. You will say they don't follow the true path of course, but they are still religious. If the violent use-and-disuse morality you speak of existed only in atheists then you'd have a point. But clearly it doesn't. Prisons are not exclusive to atheists, and in fact they aren't even all that prevalent there.

No where have I said that just because a prson becomes Muslim, he will become more moral.

The mirror neurons and wincing and all the examples that you've given, they do not prove morality.

As for evidence of empathy, the research you have quoted only shows ppls behaviors. It only proves that many humans behave in a way that can be called empathetic/moral. Yet the research you have quoted has not proved that empathy/morality exists, just like how atoms exist, or how gravity exists or how viruses exists. When you come up with such absolute research and evidence of empathy/morality as material entity, let me know.

 

[KAding]

Idependent Welcome to the boards...

I study comparatively, and I for one, do not buy into the whole "war helps" it's just stupid.

War destroys. End of.

Scimi

Well yes. War destroys. But not just property, it also destroys political and social structures, habbits and ways of life. Some of these old ways might well have hindered, say, modernization. Maybe that was the case in Europe and not in the Arab world though, who knows. It is true, however, that (religious) war was common in Europe throughout its rise to world-wide dominance.

 

[Scimitar]

Yes KAding. When we chart history from comparative sources, we find that history itself is a double edged sword. One edge saying something different to the other.

The study of comparatives, is something that lets us get a clearer, more accurate insight into the historical perception. Which today, consists mostly of the books that western historians have written - again, a bias in most cases. But there are exceptions, for example - Cormac O'Brien's works - so far I have found his work to be impartial to any history and present factual information which has been collated from comparative (and often conflicting) sources. his neutral stance on history is admirable and invites the reader to actually contemplate the intricacies of the time frames they study.

This also takes us into the realm of "sympathetic study" because we not only consider the geological evidences, but more importantly, the conditions, traditions, beliefs, morals and dogma's of the time - and take these into consideration when we view history. if we don't do this - we will be in error of judging the men of the past by comparing them and their actions to our own modern standards, traditions, beliefs, morals and dogma's... this is a grave error.

So I always study history with a view to start comparatively and end sympathetically to the times frames of history which we study.

Scimi

 

[MustafaMc]

And to answer your question directly, "What would I have to lose if I believed", first belief isn't a choice I make. I either believe or I don't. I can't make myself believe something I don't. I can not believe in your God anymore than I can belief than I am an elephant.

This is a very good point and I have often wondered why one person believes this and another person believes that while another has no belief at all about the Unseen. I agree with you about not choosing to believe something because faith comes from the heart and not from the head. I can no more disbelieve in Allah than I can to believe that God has a son or that God becomes flesh and blood, although I once believed that to be true.

Second, if I did believe in the God described above who is so murderous, I would lose a lot of self respect and integrity if I bowed down to him.

Yes, just as Shaytan refused to bow before Adam because it was in conflict with his self image of being better than Adam. The concepts of God that are put forth can be contradictory to what one can imagine is reasonable from one's human perspective. For example, I have a FB friend who has a real problem with the 'God of Abraham' who would tell him to sacrifice his son. If God, resurrection, Judgment Day, Heaven and Hell are real, then it matters little to God that we refuse to worship Him because we deem Him unworthy of worship.

 

[Al-Warraq]

Pygoscelis :

Who told you that? I have never heard an atheist claim that.

Not even Dawkins who calls for more than that? He calls even for animality! Don't many atheists call themselves naturalists? This is a well-known thing in the atheistic thought, that it considers nature the basis on which values should be built after the fall of the religious values.

Atheism is not excluded from human nature. It if was then there wouldn't be any atheists.

But not every person is abiding by his/her nature. People often do things different from their nature, and even destroy nature. Faith, morality, humanism and logic belong to human nature, and Atheism isn't in harmony with all that. Atheism respects science more than logic and describes it as relative, the same way it belittles morality and describes it as relative. The new atheists consider humanism as a tumbling stone in the way of science, and values should be built on the basis of science, i.e. matter and interest, all that and more are oppositions to the human nature.

I do think that we have an innate evolved tendency to see agency in things, and to err on the side of seeing it where it isn't (and wasting a bit of energy) instead of missing it where it is (and getting eaten or killed). Erring in this direction gave a survival advantage and so it is prevalent today. People pray to Gods to make it rain, just as they talk to their toasters or plead with their cars to make it to the next gas station when almost out of gas.

I also think it is inate and evolved that we instinctively look to and follow higher authority. That gives a huge survival advantage, as obeying "mom" when young no doubt kept us alive better. That same drive to submit to a higher power can no doubt be carried over to gods and kings.

This is only an attempt for justification and a mere opinion, it's not science.

God isn't one of the things that people see, thus your analogy doesn't apply to Him. Sound logic leads to God, and it's not a naïve vision that wants to see non agent things as agent. Logic says that this planet that's protected, furnished, air-conditioned, supplied with food and oxygen, and prepared for life didn't come by itself, there is an invisible higher will that's not part of this planet. This is what logic said to humans. And the multiple representations of Gods are only means to reach the one God and symbols for Him. They don't worship those gods themselves, their holiness is derived from the invisible Greatest God.
Worshipping God isn't a naïve issue, it's a logical, reasonable, philosophical and moral inevitability. That is why I told you that atheism opposes logic, morality and the human feeling, because they all lead to that great God that's necessarily existent according to our human logical capabilities.

That is a perfectly circular tautalogy. Of course every created needs a creator. Anything that doesn't need a creator (be that the universe or God himself) can't be called a created.

Then you are saying that it's not necessarily true that there is a creator for every created, and you see that as logical! Give us one example. Of course you can't, except through Hawking's illogical assumptions. You see that as a logical fact, and facts have many instances, we only want one from reality for a created without a creator, since this is a circular tautology. Of course, you won't be able to provide any examples, and yet you'll insist that it's a meaningless rule. How would you describe yourself then? Are you logical? Or am I illogical for asking for a logical example of what you see as logical?

Reason told us that there is a creator for every created, so why would we stop logic when it comes to life and the universe? Is it just for the sake of atheism? We can do for your sake things other than disabling reason.

It doesn't.

Aren't morals part of feelings? And atheism marginalizes morality and claims it's relativity, and attributes it to material interest, thus eliminating morality. Atheism maintains selfishness, and accuses morals of being remains of the false religions, and that masters had imposed them on slaves as the atheist master Nietzsche says, or that the bourgeoisie had imposed it as the atheist Marx says. Don't atheists claim that feelings are material? And consider them in opposition with the interest-based mind? Therefore, atheism oppresses feelings and directs them to material interest only, as a motive and as an aim.

Because emotion isn't evidence of anything besides experiencing emotion.

Then why do they exist? Why did we feel them? And what did they tell us when we felt them? what has value when feelings have no value? Just now you said that atheism doesn't oppress feelings, and now you say that feelings don't tell us something of value, so do you still insist that atheism isn't against feelings?

Feelings are what told us everything, and they are our reference. Feelings are what produced genius. Reason is the son of feeling, because feeling means faint distinction, and when we transform it to the mind it become a mental fact.

Atheists don't admit emotion exists? That's a claim I have never seen made before. As far as I know, there are no atheists who do what you claim here.

I've talked about this already, and you can read Sam Harris and what he said about intuition, and that morality shouldn't be based on feelings but rather on science.

It most definitely is found in nature. Do a very quick google and maybe you'll be amazed just how common homosexuality is amongst non-human animals

This isn't accurate, because there is no actual practice as much there is play and training among those animals.

Atheism does no such thing. You can be atheist and homophobic. You can be atheists and hate gays just as much as religious people do. Such people are out there. THe only reason a lot of atheists don't hate homosexuals or homosexuality is because they don't have a holy book telling them to do so, and without that direction a lot of people want to be nice to each other and tolerate each other's differences. And again, not all atheists do. It has nothing to do with atheism.

That's the reason, thus for morality and respect of nature to flourish there must be a holy book, this is where your words lead us to.

Also, notice that you are trying to prove that homosexuality is natural among non-human animals, and since it is, nature is teleological, but what's the purpose and scientific value of homosexuality? Nothing of course. Then, you are defending something unnatural, because it opposes religion and humanitarian values, by attempting to prove its natural origin.

Whenever a male jumps on another male you consider this homosexuality, it might be a fight or a training, like when we see little calves jumping on each other when there are no females, but without insertion.

You said: "a lot of atheists", and almost all atheists say that homosexuality is found in nature, what does that mean? It means that it's more than just being "nice to others", since the atheistic thought presents natural foundation for homosexuality through some random male jumps, even though it knows that the sexual intercourse in nature takes place between a male and a female. This is what science proved. Why, then, doesn't atheism commit to what logic and science has proved, that sexual contact is with the other sex? Especially when the atheist tries to look scientific, then why does s/he adopt something not scientific? Science says that sex is with the other sex for the survival of the species. I've never talked to an atheist who doesn't defend the natural foundation of homosexuality, is that a coincidences? Or is it part of the atheistic thought?

Do you really believe that atheists can not love? Why do you think such a thing? We most certainly do love.

You do love, but by doing so you're acting against your ideology and opposing it. Because there is no atheist who can fully apply atheism. Atheism is a materialistic thought based on material interest, and any relationship of this kind is a business relationship not an emotional one. There are no emotions in the life of the true atheist, only material interests and ways to reach them. Love ,like feelings, isn't a material thing, so it has no real value in the materialistic philosophy, just like committing to morality. There is no value to morality nor love except if they lead to material sensual interest. This is atheism, which stems from the materialistic philosophy that doesn't even admit the existence of the soul. And feelings aren't material, thus they have no real value by themselves, they are only passages. That is why atheism talks of the relativity of morality and its interest-based aim. This explains the instability in the atheist's personality according to the points of interests and sensual pleasure, because morals are constants and constants hinder movement, and the atheistic thought wants to move towards wherever the sensual pleasure is, because it's the only thing that atheism admits its existence: matter and how it can serve our interest.

Doing good for its own sake is one thing. Doing good (or bad) because you are ordered to is something else entirely.

Why is it different? Since you knew it's good and at the same time had been ordered to do it, where is the harm? It's wrong when you don't know it's good and yet you were ordered to do it.

When a friend of yours tells you: apologize to your wife, and you accept his advice, did you just did a crime? We love good, and God ordered us to do it, where is the problem?

Moreover, how can an atheist do good while atheism doesn't admit a separation between good and evil? The lack of the separator means that good and evil are mixed together. How, then, would you know good in order to do it? While your philosophy denies the existence of a separation between good and evil?

Rubbish. If anything, theism buries morality under obedience to power.

This statement needs explanation: religion is based on morality and yet it's against morality! That's weird! And atheism is based on material interest and loves morality? That's even weirder! The selfish materialistic utility is the enemy of morality, and atheism is built upon it. Thus, an atheist can't be moral and be atheist at the same moment, and a believer in God can't be immoral unless s/he isn't a believer at that moment. You can see the big difference.

And how does religion bury morality under obedience to power? This is illogical! As far as I know it's atheism that believes in the survival of the strongest, thus, motivated by pragmatism and interest, we submit to the stronger when we can't destroy it. While religion orders us to sacrifice for good even if it's against our personal interests.

Who linked themselves to material interest can never be moral, unless when they forget their ideology and acted naturally.

I'm talking about atheism not about atheists. Many atheists forget their evil ideas and do good deeds emanating from their nature, but they remember their ideas and change their actions according to them. That's why atheism makes a wobbling personality of the atheist not a steady one.

Quite an image. Where on earth are you getting these wild misconceptions?

Directly from Darwin's "The Origin of Species" first edition, which has been modified by new Darwinians to an unknown mammal other than the bear, jumped to the sea through millions of years and changed into a mammal like other mammals but in the sea, because the existence of a mammal in the sea caused a problem to the theory and bewildered Darwin who said that amphibian came after fish then reptiles then mammals, while the wheal is a fish and a mammal! And atheism adopts Darwinism, I don't think you disagree with me on that.

find it ironic that you are saying atheism advocates capitalism, when atheism is also often claimed to push communism (the opposite of capitalism).

Atheism has nothing to do with any of what you are talking about. Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods. That's it.

That's it? Here is where you go wrong. Because you stripped the act from its consequences and needs. Saying that atheism is only a disbelief in God and the rest is like everybody else is like saying that a person loves murder but he's like everybody else in everything! even in hating murder!

Atheism appeared before communism, and its emergence was accompanying the emergence of capitalism. Communism is only a group of atheists from the lower classes economically that has an anti-capitalist economical view point, caused by the deteriorating situation of workers and the capitalists' exploitation of their efforts. It's a group of atheists that fights religion, just like capitalist atheism fights religion. Communism is one of the means of capitalism to destroy religion and remove it along with all the morals and values associated with it, to clear the way for the capitalist control. And this is exactly what had occurred, which means that communism is a temporal process lasted for about 70 years and stopped after spreading atheism and destroying religion and morality and paving the way for capitalism. Notice that the first communist revolution was supported by the west, in the orthodox tsarist Russia which was protecting the Christian faith and its values, and now became an open market for capitalism after the cleaning process of communism, which tried to rise in France before that at the days of the monarchy.

In other words, communism destroys aristocracy to pave the way for capitalism after spreading secularism, democracy, liberalism and individualism which make the fertile land for capitalism -the US is a clear example of that- as an alternative to monarchy. Aristocracy is the biggest stumbling block in the way of the capitalist tide. That is why the peoples of the US and west are the most sufferers from capitalism, which is evidenced by the Occupy Wall St. protests in more than 1000 western cities, especially in Canada. Communism is nothing but a bulldozer to pave the way, it does what it has to do and leave, this what actually happened in the last 70 years.

The president of the biggest communist country appears in the media advertising for a cola company! Notice that communism never rose in any secular democratic and liberal country, why? From here we understand that capitalism is what created communism. Notice that there was no war and a real conflict between the communist and the capitalist blocs. Any land taken by capitalism after communism is all set for it, with no aristocracy, religious control nor values, only a prepared ground of materialistic philosophy. Communism came to ruin what exists more than to change it. It is the beneficial capitalist bulldozer. After the communist fasting, the peoples become hungry for the capitalist consumption, like what happened in Russia.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I was about to go over that point by point, but on second thought I'm not really sure it is worth the effort. You clearly have absolutely no idea what atheism is and who atheists are, what they think or what they feel. You refuse to have actual atheists inform you and clarify your blatant misconceptions, and you instead create your own vision of who atheists are and what they believe and assign it to them. I addressed your misconceptions in the first reply to your post and I don't know if anything else needs to be clarified. If any other posters here (of any religion or non-religion) would like clarification please say so and I will address it.

 

[observer]

Logic says that this planet that's protected, furnished, air-conditioned, supplied with food and oxygen, and prepared for life didn't come by itself, there is an invisible higher will that's not part of this planet. This is what logic said to humans

That's not logic. You're basically saying: "Look at this amazing thing, it's so amazing that it must be divine." The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. I'm not saying that the conclusion is necessarily wrong, but it certainly isn't logically derived from the fact that the Earth supports life.

As for homosexuality being natural, a quick Google finds this from psychology today -

"Perhaps a tenth of penguin pairings in the wild are same-sex, a remarkable phenomenon when one considers that penguins often mate for life."

- and a whole raft of in depth scientific studies of same sex pairings (not dalliances) in animals.

And as for atheists not feeling emotions....

 

[dusk]

Then, you are defending something unnatural, because it opposes religion and humanitarian values, by attempting to prove its natural origin.

Proving the natural origin doesn't matter. Proving that is natural also only matters to a degree. What matters is to understand and recognize that it exists. Humanitarian values than demand that one does not impede the life they need to live fulfilled and happy.
I despise that religious notion of natural. Is down syndrom natural? Should we euthanize every such child or lock them away from the public like Nazis did. If it was a desease it is none that could be healed nor should be. There is no harm in it but it is harmful to force on them a life they would not want. Only people that are bisexual themselves can subjectively think that okay because they think all are like them. A complete hetero sexual man wouldn't want to be forced to marry another man or spend his life alone.
Atheist have no holy book that demands such unjustifiably behavior of them and that is why they are more likely to support LGBT rights. They have no incentive to hold on to prejudices when presented with the arguments for equality rights.

Materialism does not mean that nothing but the material exists or that everything else is ignored, discouraged or demonized. The naturalist simply states that there are different realms and that certain concepts do have different meanings in each. Also Atheists don't deny a dualistic model of a soul that does not mean anything that could be referred to as a soul is none existent. They simply take care not to use the word soul because of inevitable misconceptions when dealing with people that assume for every term their own definition is applicable. Some Atheists do talk of souls but they don't mean the exact same thing as Dualists.
I would suggest a link but I am not allowed to post it where a former Christian atheist argues for naturalism against a very well read Christian theologian who defends presuppositionalist believe in god.

Those who pretend that their subjective analysis of the data is not subjective, who never consider the validity of their axioms, who never wonder what interpretive heuristic grants the best results, who never contemplate the possibility of a paradigm shift, in short who blindly follow a naive view of objectivity, these are the ones we should worry about.

It is not Atheist that deny logic it is short sighted simplification and lack of motivation or fear from alternative answers. The jump from there must be some god to there is my personal god is entirely trivialized by you. It is not straightforward and requires quite a few axioms that many people never even admit to.

Atheism is not a religion. There is no believe in the survival of the strongest that sounds more calvinist to me. There is realists and idealists. Humanist and nationalists. There is no holy book and no one teaching. People are still free to hold values and most values we do hold for no better reason than preference. Holy books don't change that. The interpretations still bend the way people like them or they convert to whatever puts their mind at ease. The free spirits go western, the authoritarian go middle east or north east or to rome, the hippies go east or animist or wiccan.
From our values, desires and fears derive our morals. The golden rule is the only heuristic one really needs to test for consistency. Shortsighted selfishness is a problem with some atheists but even more so with zealous believers, at least the former knows why.

 

[M.I.A.]

it seems athiesm is simply a denial of god.

i mean islam is a religion that relies heavily on the unseen.

not just the presently unseen but the historically unseen.

gog and magog is something that reoccurs in scriptures.

the quran in particular has a story about people of the cave.


the concept of a judgement day is a major point.


i think what im trying to get at is that most people of faith see the world much the same as you do, but are very much aware that it is a very narrow field of vision.


but i think your athiesm is a form of rebellion against conforming to stereotypes, which i applaud.

it makes me think that you know as well as any other that there is more to the world than meets the eye.

but really, no holy book?

maybe you have not read it.

 

[جوري]

Proving the natural origin doesn't matter. Proving that is natural also only matters to a degree.

Actually it matters very much as that is the very crux of the argument. If you can't clarify a point of origin then everything else is built on conjecture and there's no shortage of those.. You don't theorize better than the next guy because you've assigned yourself smarts! & You don't get to start from the point of your choosing simply because you deem the origin of no matter!

best,

 

[Al-Warraq]

I was about to go over that point by point, but on second thought I'm not really sure it is worth the effort. You clearly have absolutely no idea what atheism is and who atheists are, what they think or what they feel.

Clearly, your detailed reply is nothing but an unrealized wish, if it's not worth the effort you shouldn't have written anything in the first place, this is simply what happened. The devil is in the detail and you escape detail to external judgments, which evidences the incapability for detailed and objective refutation. You can't get blood out of stones. And I can't blame you for this unkind escape.

You refuse to have actual atheists inform you and clarify your blatant misconceptions, and you instead create your own vision of who atheists are and what they believe and assign it to them.

Yes, the same way you create your own vision of believers and say your opinion about them, they have the right to do that. Every person trusts his mind first, and you want me to leave my mind and trust your mind because you are an atheist and the topic is about atheism?! Then we should let the criminal speak about his crime and judge himself without a judge because this is his matter! This an illogical request. I evaluate atheism according to humans' common mind. I evaluate it through the atheists' theses not through what atheists like. You want me to say whatever the atheist like about atheism. Ok, I want you to say about belief in God whatever I want you to say! You don't want to do that, so why do you want me to commit to something you don't commit to?

I addressed your misconceptions in the first reply to your post and I don't know if anything else needs to be clarified.

Where is your first "reply" so I can reply to it? With detail and respect, not with impoliteness and attempts to escape as you do.

 

[Al-Warraq]

That's not logic. You're basically saying: "Look at this amazing thing, it's so amazing that it must be divine." The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. I'm not saying that the conclusion is necessarily wrong, but it certainly isn't logically derived from the fact that the Earth supports life.

The Earth doesn't support life, the Earth is prepared for life, to be precise. Life doesn't exist without the Earth in the first place.

And your objection isn't convincing nor logical.

As for homosexuality being natural, a quick Google finds this from psychology today –
"Perhaps a tenth of penguin pairings in the wild are same-sex, a remarkable phenomenon when one considers that penguins often mate for life."

This isn't realistic nor logical. What would a male penguin benefit from pairing with another male for the rest of its life? You answer me. What does nature get from this irregular behavior? And what did the male penguin find in the other male and didn't find in the female? We just want to understand for the sake of reason.

Those myths are unbelievable because they effect the mental structure. There is no real homosexuality in nature, else what is the point of having two sexes? Homosexuality doesn't produce life nor supports the survival of the species, and the sexual desire is for the continuation of life. We can easily understand this with reason.


Capturing snapshots of play among male animals -which might be a struggle sometimes- is a weak evidence, because there is no sexual penetration among males in nature, only hops and dalliances for training, especially among young males, and when a female comes all males go towards it. Such weak justifications doesn't fool us. How can we believe that a male penguin pairs with another male for the rest of life? Isn't instinct what controls animal behavior? Is there a homosexual instinct in animals and known among zoologists? Don't bother looking for clips, because a logical science of animals ensures the nonexistence of homosexuality in nature, and proved the existence of instincts and their control over the animal that knows which of the two openings it should go to in the sexual process. And praise be to reason after being to God.

- and a whole raft of in depth scientific studies of same sex pairings (not dalliances) in animals.

You mention the word "studies" to delude us as you are deluded. If there were pairings among the same sex then scientifically justify it for us. Why do some male animals pair with other males and leave females? Where is the reason for the sake of reason? Or it doesn't matter? What matters is only atheism and homosexuality?

If there is irregularity in sex among animals as you would like it to be, then there should be irregularity in other instincts. Why is there irregularity in sex only and not other instincts? Have you seen how personal desire and selectivity entered science?

And as for atheists not feeling emotions..

I'm not saying they don't feel, they do, but atheism is against the whole world of feelings, because it's materialistic. And there is no atheist who can fully apply atheism, because it's not realistic and inapplicable. Man isn't only matter as atheism says, and doesn't only abide by material laws as atheism says. Atheism is a weak philosophy that can't stand up for debate and can't be fully applied. It's built on desire, so it can be defended through nothing but desire and emotions. As many –not all- atheists do who escape rationality and objectivity to emotions and mockery, but they don't continue a discussion, because of the weakness of the intellectual foundation and philosophy of atheism, because it's built on an incomplete view of man.

 

[CosmicPathos]

If atheists were geniunely living according to their understanding of reality, they should be living a pathetic life of misogyny and depression as Neitzsche lived, true to his belief or lack of belief in Deity, superior moralsm and external purpose.

 

[Scimitar]

Neitzsche is dead - God



anyway - time to blow the evolutionists into some dark waters:

har de freakin' har I can hear their teeth grinding like tectonic plate shifts

Scimi

 

[جوري]

If atheists were geniunely living according to their understanding of reality, they should be living a pathetic life of misogyny and depression as Neitzsche lived, true to his belief or lack of belief in Deity, superior moralsm and external purpose.

The argument is the same you know that's the problem. Nothing new, up to and including the homo penguins. Animals are also not known to be monogamous, so why do they condemn and down right frown upon polygamy which would actually give identity and inheritance to those b@stard children and is actually conducive to the continuation of life as opposed to a hedonistic futile cycle...
Walhi sometimes I think it is this huge farce you know, like do they actually believe in the words they speak? Two men or two women getting married, does that make sense to anyone?

 

[CosmicPathos]

The argument is the same you know that's the problem. Nothing new, up to and including the homo penguins. Animals are also not known to be monogamous, so why do they condemn and down right frown upon polygamy which would actually give identity and inheritance to those b@stard children and is actually conducive to the continuation of life as opposed to a hedonistic futile cycle...
Walhi sometimes I think it is this huge farce you know, like do they actually believe in the words they speak? Two men or two women getting married, does that make sense to anyone?

It bamboozles me to see that men (or women) want to share their life/thoughts/experiences with those of same gender. I mean, even taking the sexual part out, I cant imagine sharing private thoughts/ideas etc with a guy, cuz being a male, he would only respond back in a way which is not different from how I respond to myself! Thanks but no thanks, I do not have time to invest in something which I already have!

 

[جوري]

It bamboozles me to see that men (or women) want to share their life/thoughts/experiences with those of same gender. I mean, even taking the sexual part out, I cant imagine sharing private thoughts/ideas etc with a guy, cuz being a male, he would only respond back in a way which is not different from how I respond to myself! Thanks but no thanks, I do not have time to invest in something which I already have!

lols it is so true- although I do keep myself good company.. we all need someone to antagonize and challenge us a bit with a different structure, I mean that's what makes it exciting. But I think I know why some have this attraction at least as far as men are concerned and it is perverse .. The Lesbian thing I really can't figure out and don't want to spend time thinking about it..homosexuality always rears itself in every atheist thread..

 

[CosmicPathos]

ive thought about lesbian thing, I think most women who grow up abused and used by "men" resort to traveling on that avenue. or the "tomboy" types .... God knows what goes on in their mind. :s

But again, the atheistic resort of homosexuality being in nature really amuses me. First of all, we do not know if those animals REALLY have homoerotic desires or that they engage in perverse activities as part of territory building, who knows. Secondly, animals murder each other too, why do atheists condemn murder then if nature is to be the model on which we base our lives!

 

[جوري]

I think most women who grow up abused and used by "men" resort to traveling on that avenue

I disagree-- I mean you could be right and a high probability that I can be wrong but I have come across many an abused and used women who tend to like to play also perverse games but with men to fix it over and over in whatever form that conceive in their mind gets rid of that preoccupation .. you know how when you're irresolute about something in your mind, like say you had a fight with someone who died and you had feelings for them ambivalent as they're, you constantly try to work that situation or it manifests in dreams or whatever. I don't recommend you watch it or even search for it but there was a movie dealing with that sort of issue called the night porter.