So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[joobz]

I would love to visit Kentucky (bourbon tasting and creationist museums would be a blast, possibly a bad idea in that order, but a blast!). The closest I have been would be Indianapolis. Unfortunately it is the client who dictates the party bus route, not me.

Well we need to find you some clients here. What do you do?!??

You live in Kentucky? Isn't that the most bible beltish place in the world-- a place of DOC clones and the like? This forum must be an oasis for you. If anyone needed a skeptic party bus it would be a skeptic in Kentucky I would think... maybe we should start a fund... surely TAM 6 is a possibility, eh?

Hokulele and I will get you drunk as only skepchicks can.

I'd love to have a group come here. We could go to the creation museum and everything.

I must say, lexington is fairly progressive town.(the university has same sex partner rights) Although I do pass ~7-10 churches on my way to work (a 8 mile drive).

 

[articulett]

Well, Pascal was a bit of an enigma. I don't know if he changed between the time he made his famous "wager" and the time he made this quote (taken from the book that both you and I own) or if he was alternately lucid and loony.

I noticed that too... and I wondered about it... I think he was just trying to find a logical way to support believing in whatever nebulous thing he believed... or at least give the impression that he believed. I think he could recognize that religion made people loony, and still believe that some thing might be true or that some invisible something might punish you if you didn't believe... like today's deist maybe.

Pascal's wager seems very childish to me, but he lived at a time when there weren't as many satisfying explanations for what we observe as there are now... and the threat of eternal damnation for not believing is something you have to be pretty brave to scoff at.

For me it ended up being a no win situation because I could never figure out how to make myself believe something or what I was supposed to believe or how I was supposed to show this belief to please the invisible overlord with the nebulous rubric... so realizing that no one could know that any of this divine knowledge they claimed to know was a great relief for me. Before that, I would mistake confidence for competence--but there were so many conflicting viewpoints that I soon learned that every guy thought they were as right as Tom Cruise or the Pope or Plumjam no matter what their magical divine truth. Sure, all people think they are right--but the atheist doesn't pretend it's because of some divine truth that you are just supposed to have faith in!

I suspect a lot of women believe out of fear of not believing and angering the invisible misogynist in the sky who deems eternal torment a proper punishment for the descendants of apple eaters.

Dawkins notes, that it is much easier to be an atheist now because there are satisfying answers for questions we have, and humans have a hard time not knowing or understanding... they seem to take almost any answer over not knowing. And god tends to fill the gaps nicely and stick there via threats and ego stroking.

When reading the quotes and various people here, I recognize my own path in letting go of what I had been indoctrinated to believe versus what is really true. I suspect Pascal would have thought his way beyond his wager had he been alive in present times...

My brother kind of got my son to be a believer via Pascal's wager at about the age of 10-- but by 16 he had outgrown it and seen it for what it was.

He's certainly ahead in critical thinking than I was at his age. It feels good to own it and find your way there yourself--at least he won't have to undo the years of backwards sort of "non thinking" encouraged by the notions that have turned plumjam into the faith head that he is.

I him to learn to ask-- Is it true? How do you know? How can we test it? I wish I had these tools earlier. I was never cut out for faith.

 

[DOC]

I know that's what you claim, but my statement isn't false.

Then show me the evidence, or you should apologize for making a false derogatory statement about me.

 

[Hokulele]

Well we need to find you some clients here. What do you do?!??

Apparently as a True Atheist^TM, I am supposed to be raping, pillaging, robbing, and otherwise brutalizing other people. In between eating babies that is.

In reality though, I do training and consulting for people who use CADD (computer aided design and drafting) and project management software. Primarily I work with engineers, construction firms, and companies in the energy industry. Nerdy stuff.

I'd love to have a group come here. We could go to the creation museum and everything.

I must say, lexington is fairly progressive town.(the university has same sex partner rights) Although I do pass ~7-10 churches on my way to work (a 8 mile drive).

Sounds like fun, if I ever am scheduled to be in the area, you will be the first to know.

 

[Roadtoad]

Apparently as a True Atheist^TM, I am supposed to be raping, pillaging, robbing, and otherwise brutalizing other people. In between eating babies that is...

Reminds me of the co-worker I once had. I asked if he liked kids.

"Sure," he answered, following that in a W.C. Fields voice, "Broiled, mainly..."

 

[articulett]

Randi is an atheist... and he could be fooling people the way Popoff and Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne do... because he's better than them. Instead he teaches us how they are fooling us.... how readily we can be fooled. That is morality I have never seen in a theist. By plumjams logic, he should be exploiting his talents to enrich himself and make himself get the praise that gurus get... but he does not...

So clearly, faith has nothing to do with morality... it just makes people think they are being more moral while being dishonest or doing what they want to do anyhow. Where is the person of faith that is more moral that Randi? Or Carl Sagan? Or Dawkins? Or Julia Sweeney or Hokulele.... I don't see it. I don't see this supposed morality due to religion. I just see a lot of assorted believers who think they are more moral than all those who believe differently or who don't believe at all. Plus most spread that atheistic bigotry that his rather obnoxious and biased beyond belief... I mean I know that's part of the paradigm--the way the faith virus stays alive-- but it's ugly and wrong and not supported by any evidence at all.

 

[joobz]

Then show me the evidence, or you should apologize for making a false derogatory statement about me.

All I need to do is prove that you view any charity done without god is inherently evil/bad. And that you view that we deserve (because of our wickedness) the bad things that happen to us. It's a simple matter of knowing that you equate non-martial sex as evil to see the logical conclusion.

And I simply said, according to you, it COULD be considered evil.
Are you certain you wish for me to present the facts?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

The two main arguments plumjam was making throughout this thread have been:

1) Atheism necessarily leads to an immoral society.
2) Without God, there is no basis for morality.

I (and many others here) have proven both of these points wrong. Then I saw that plumjam repeated them both at least once since the last time I posted, which means he obviously ignored the fact that he got shot down. I'm not in any position to say who won this debate, but I do have a pretty good idea of who lost.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think the baby I have in the oven should be just about done.

 

[Roadtoad]

The two main arguments plumjam was making throughout this thread have been:

1) Atheism necessarily leads to an immoral society.
2) Without God, there is no basis for morality.

I (and many others here) have proven both of these points wrong. Then I saw that plumjam repeated them both at least once since the last time I posted, which means he obviously ignored the fact that he got shot down. I'm not in any position to say who won this debate, but I do have a pretty good idea of who lost.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think the baby I have in the oven should be just about done.

Dibs on the drumsticks.

 

[Esperdome]

Roadtoad, I think we made Hokulele blush. That isn't hard to do since she's such a down-to-earth type gal. At least we don't have it as bad as Tricky, he tries to pull her pigtails every chance he gets.

And Hokulele, definitely DO NOT pull Tricky's finger if he just got back from the Indian buffet!

 

[joobz]

In reality though, I do training and consulting for people who use CADD (computer aided design and drafting) and project management software. Primarily I work with engineers, construction firms, and companies in the energy industry. Nerdy stuff.

Nerdy stuff rocks, says the engineer.

Sounds like fun, if I ever am scheduled to be in the area, you will be the first to know.

sounds good to me.

 

[articulett]

Dibs on the drumsticks.

Fill up, --we plan to pillage and plunder after dessert--

 

[DOC]

All I need to do is prove that you view any charity done without god is inherently evil/bad. And that you view that we deserve (because of our wickedness) the bad things that happen to us. It's a simple matter of knowing that you equate non-martial sex as evil to see the logical conclusion.

And I simply said, according to you, it COULD be considered evil.
Are you certain you wish for me to present the facts?

Yes, present the evidence that what you said about me in your following statement is true.

Well, according to DOC, The gate's foundation's attempts at dealing with the AIDS problem in africa could be considered evil.

 

[joobz]

Yes, present the evidence that what you said about me in your following statement is true.

All I need to do is prove that you view any charity done without god is inherently evil/bad(1). And that you view that we deserve (because of our wickedness) the bad things that happen to us.(2) It's a simple matter of knowing that you equate non-martial sex as evil to see the logical conclusion.

And I simply said, according to you, it COULD be considered evil.
Are you certain you wish for me to present the facts?

Step (1)

And any money people give to ungodly causes will ultimately be a detriment to humanity.

Step (2)

Also I'll give a spiritual answer. We live in a mostly secular (some would say sinful) world. Murder and crime is a way of life in America and could get worse as the economy worsens -- just watch your nightly news. One could make a argument that atheists are more at home in this secular environment and better able to adjust, thus the less need to commit crime. Its no secret that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the middle class. This is great for the rich. But negative for everyone else. Just watch the news. Things seem to be getting worse. Maybe payday is coming for our secular ways.

DOC, it is clear that according to your views, it is possible that The gate's foundation's attempts at dealing with the AIDS problem in africa could be considered evil.

 

[articulett]

And it's the most religious areas that have the highest rates of crime, abortion, teen pregnancy, venereal disease, and homicide. That, in itself, shows that religion is not protective in any way against the things it claims to promote. Where are these fabulously moral religious people? Who has been made better by religion? Or does religion just make people think they are better, like DOC?

 

[DOC]

go to next post.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC
Yes, present the evidence that what you said about me in your following statement is true.

Well, according to DOC, The gate's foundation's attempts at dealing with the AIDS problem in africa could be considered evil.

Posted by joobz
All I need to do is prove that you view any charity done without god is inherently evil/bad(1). And that you view that we deserve (because of our wickedness) the bad things that happen to us.(2) It's a simple matter of knowing that you equate non-martial sex as evil to see the logical conclusion.

And I simply said, according to you, it COULD be considered evil.
Are you certain you wish for me to present the facts?

Step (1)

Originally Posted by DOC View Post

And any money people give to ungodly causes will ultimately be a detriment to humanity.


Step (2)

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Also I'll give a spiritual answer. We live in a mostly secular (some would say sinful) world. Murder and crime is a way of life in America and could get worse as the economy worsens -- just watch your nightly news. One could make a argument that atheists are more at home in this secular environment and better able to adjust, thus the less need to commit crime. Its no secret that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the middle class. This is great for the rich. But negative for everyone else. Just watch the news. Things seem to be getting worse. Maybe payday is coming for our secular ways.



DOC, it is clear that according to your views, it is possible that The gate's foundation's attempts at dealing with the AIDS problem in africa could be considered evil.

Non Sequitur. For your reasoning to make sense I would of had to have said that the Gates Foundation's "attempt to deal with" the AIDS problem in Africa is ungodly. Since I never said their effort or "attempt" to deal with AIDS is ungodly (or even anything like that) you made a false derogatory statement about me, again.

 

[articulett]

What Doc is trying to tell you is that if it's good it's because of God and the moral goodness he graced you with... if it's bad it's because it's ungodly...

See... you just need to think like a theist. If you like seems like a good thing-- praise god.... if it seems like a bad thing--blame secularism.

Now do you understand, Joobz?

 

[joobz]

Non Sequitur. For your reasoning to make sense I would of had to have said that the Gates Foundation's attempt to deal with the AIDS problem in Africa is ungodly. Since I never said that you made a false derogatory statement about me, again.

Do you understand the definition of non sequitor?

Since the gates foundation does secular work, it is by definition ungodly.
Nope, I've said nothing wrong.

By the way, you shame yourself with your demands for an apology.


ETA: This is the last post I'll respond to this line with in this thread. It's a derail and I apologize to everyone (except DOC) for allowing it to go on so long.

IF DOC wishes to continue this debate, I request that he start a thread where we can compare our respective forum credibility.

 

[Tricky]

For your reasoning to make sense I would of had to have said that the Gates Foundation's attempt to deal with the AIDS problem in Africa is ungodly.

Maybe this requires a definition. Does "ungodly" mean God is against it, or does it simply mean that God is not involved?