Hey, just realised, whenever I write the word 'f-u-c-k' on here it replaces it with 'darn', which in fact would be more offensive to religious people as 'darn' is a corruption of 'd-a-m-n'
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 12 years ago
if t were that simple there would be peace. its not.. in fact the first 4 words im ready to debate.
dont follow this idea at all.. rather make up your own and respect the next persons too.. thats it, the end.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 12 years ago
cant we all just get along.
and PS.
shut the fuck up
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 12 years ago
if there is no meaning to life, then that means you can't make a meaning to it. If there is no meaning, there is no free will, because everything can be predicted.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
If life is really meaningless, give me a reason to exist
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Religious but tolerant<3
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
To all the "believers"...the fucking sun doesn't rise. At all. The earth spins around. Where did you people go to school?? Lol. Religious fights are always funny to me.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Wow you commentors are really really "deep". Alot of bickering and whatnot. Dont think or "believe" your self to death. lol. A bunch of well spoken
people nonetheless.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Yeah this poster is f*cking meaningless and I'd like to watch it burn ;)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I like it. I wish it was a poster.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Interestig that most of you seem consumed with the argument of the authors belief/nonbeliefs rather than looking at what part of the poster may speak to you. My personal thought is that the energy spent in the posts trying to validate the individual's position are an absolute waste of time. When it comes to religion and beliefs, people hold on to them as though their very existance depends upon it and will never change. So stop the futile discussion and go out and make/live your life.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
if you're gonna distress type do it by hand, downloading a bunch of typefces from dafont is pretty easy, and you showed how easy.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
who cares what any of u have to say,, its all in vain,,,,, big up dude
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I think this is beautiful. I feel that the write needs to be drastic to get his/her point across. Please react and listen better that way.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
'Fighting meaningless is futile', - no, as you've just stated imbruing something with meaning is easy, I do it all the time. And just because it doesn't exist outside of our own human constructs doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have profound effects on the world.
Consciousness is real (it's the only thing I can be sure of! *nod* to 'I think therefore I am) ergo meaning is real.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Where do I buy a print of this
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
This is pretty lame honestly.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
In seeing the arguments over the classification of atheism as a religion, I feel it is important to stress that most reasonable atheists adhere to a logical system of "belief" closely mirroring the scientific method. In other words, they believe in things for which they have very strong evidence. This doesn't mean they will never accept God. It merely means that they will refuse to do so until He makes Himself known into a truly verifiable way (no "my brother knows a guy whose uncle saw Jesus in a burrito" business). I myself fall into this camp, and for the most part it simply means that I do not factor deities of any sort into my life or perspectives because they're about as practical as the Easter Bunny. Doesn't mean I think it's impossible for God to be out there. But based upon the data I have now, what other conclusion can I draw? Just as scientific theories are often radically challenged and even overturned, so too does most atheism (at least in the freethinkers I have met) seek to revise itself, at least in terms of the small changes to our beliefs and moral views. Believe me, the atheism of my youth was arrogant and dogmatic. Now, I hope not so much. My point is that it seems kind of prudent for an atheist such as myself to say that I am entirely open and willing to be proven wrong. It'll just take a lot to do so. The universe is a crazy, fascinating, entirely wondrous place all by itself without God. If He turns out to be at the center of it all, my pure human mind will be crushed in that fear and awe of Him that's so often quoted because it will clearly destroy the rational system of thought I've tried my hardest to hone. Hope this puts maybe a positive spin on things?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
My question is this, if the world is meaningless what is the point of even living?
You must find your own meaning and live for that reason. If you live your life according to someone else's meaning, you will feel quite empty.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
This contradicts itself. What separates us from all other matter in the universe? What gives us the right to create meaning? Who has given us the paintbrush with which we paint our canvas, which must have also been provided? How are we capable of creating meaning? Only through consciousness is any of this possible. It's the ultimate superset of the universe. But you deny deities which, in turn, denies consciousness because there would be no connection through which consciousness is made. Only with some sort of entity outside of everything is any sort of creation of meaning possible.
Also, we are born with certain aspects that differ from one another. We can make our own meaning, yes, but it must match the path we are meant for. It's called diversity! Different brains are hardwired different ways. You can't work outside your means. You are born with a certain shaped cup and the water of life fills it and morphs to the shape. But the journey is what matters the most. How you get the water to fill it. There is no ultimate goal we work to reach except the picture as a whole. There is no grand finale except for when you can look back at what you have done and be proud.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Can you guys stop being ignorant and saying absolutely nothing at all. All you are saying is "atheism is a religion" "no it's not". If you want to have a discussion with a purpose, take a step back - define what religion means!! Otherwise you are having a meaningless conversation.
The idea of this poster is to open your minds to the fact that we are autonomous beings, and should act as such, not based on the whims of others.
Name an established scientific theory that (as you say) cannot be known...
I'd love to hear this.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Evolution cannot be known as you say. No one has every been able to scientifically prove macro-evolution, such as the big bang or that humans came from single-celled organisms, that's why it's a scientific theory not a scientific fact or law. I will ask, How can you then prescribe to the idea that something was created out of nothing? Or how can you believe that order was created from chaos when the second law of thermodynamics states that everything is moving from order to chaos? the odds of one protein molecule forming are 1 in 10^113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. Can you just believe that happened by chance?
You say scientific theories can be known yet the reason they are theories not laws and facts is because they cannot be known. Even Darwin said he may be wrong when he spoke of evolution. He would - if alive - agree that he was wrong seeing as macro-evolution has not been proven.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 11 years ago
The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.[186][187] "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable,"[188] and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.[189]
Except he isn't. Evolution has been verified countless times, macro-evolution included. You simply choose to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend like it isn't the case.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
First, none of what you just said did anything to disprove what I was saying. You showed me that Evolution has a lot of support and is a notable theory, neither of which proves that it is true.
Second, gravity can be and has been proven while evolution cannot. The issue here is not gravity, it is evolution though. You can sit here and tell me all day that it has been proven and I can sit here and tell you how it has been proven and mine will carry significantly more weight. You cannot simply argue by saying it has been proven simply by saying it has been proven. Give me evidence of its proof, not that is has support and that it is a notable theory.
Another argument that I did not previous mention in disproving evolution is irreducible complexity. The idea that there exists forms that cannot be reduced. One such example is the flagelar motor on bacteria. This motor has 23 parts to make it work. If you take any of these parts away it will not work. Evolution teaches that for a new addition to any being the addition must benefit it for it to remain and that only one thing is added at a time. if any one of those parts is added it will in no way benefit the life form and therefore will be discarded. All 23 must be present which in the theory of evolution cannot happen.
First, none of what you just said did anything to disprove what I was saying. You showed me that Evolution has a lot of support and is a notable theory, neither of which proves that it is true.
You have no interest in the truth, you just want to muddy the waters with doubt where there is none. Any/all sane minded people accept evolution as truth. You just want to attack a very justified and well reasoned theory in order to promote your own ridiculous idea (creationism, where there is zero evidence).
Second, gravity can be and has been proven while evolution cannot.
Really? Can you please explain to me why gravity happens? I'd be very interested in what your explanation as to WHY (not "how") it happens.
Give me evidence of its proof, not that is has support and that it is a notable theory.
Only in math can you have proofs. Everything else is through deduction and evidence.
I bet you'd make a great lawyer. You'd tell the jury, "Suuure, the murderer was found at the scene covered in the victim's blood, holding the dagger, and was shouting "WHY DID I KILL HER?!!!"... but..! did anyone see him do it?! I THINK NOT! THEREFORE! HE'S CLEARLY INNOCENT!!"
Here's the funny thing though, evolution HAS been observed. It's been verified and reproduced time and again.
Another argument that I did not previous mention in disproving evolution is irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity is non-sense invented by Michael Behe, a creationist pretending to be a scientist. It has no support in the scientific community, and only gets parroted by religious people with an agenda.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I had another thought sticking with your completely fallacious and off topic Lawyer analogy. From what you have given me this is the type of lawyer you would be
Giving no evidence, "He did it, I know he did!" - you
"Ah, but where is the evidence?" - me
"Oh, there is evidence." - you
"Yes, but where is it?" - me
"He did it." - you
"How do you know?" - me
"I know because he did it." - you
If you don't believe this is accurate take a look at the evidence you have shown me. None. Well, none that matters at all.
You have done an excellent job in giving me proof that micro-evolution exists. Which I will agree with you there, changes within a species over time to adapt to environment is true. It is provable that that does happen. However, you show me common descent. Is it not also plausible that they are some similarities between different species because of they all have the same creator in common? One of the examples your wikipedia site showed me was a fish that over time changed to a completely different fish. Is there no chance there was a lot of cross breeding there mixed with micro-evolution? You cannot say that a mule is a mutation of a donkey or a horse. It isn't it is the result of breeding the two together. Yet, the mule has a lot of similarities with both of them. You still cannot logically conclude that it evolved to that because it hasn't. Micro-evolution, yes. Macro-evolution, no.
You have yet to answer a huge foundational question of evolution and that is of the big bang. How can something be created from nothing?
As another request to this argument, I would prefer that you either provide me with evidence yourself or that you choose scholarly sources, not wikipedia. instead of going to google. go to http://scholar.google.com. Please of course.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 11 years ago
And where, MATEY, is the crossover from ''macro'' to ''micro''? Evolution is the scientific explanation of how we have come to be. It explains. Creationism explains nothing. You can't say why creationism happened. You can say why evolution happened. Why? Because the fittest animal will survive. Evolution takes place over a huge timescale you obviously can't get to grips with so you just dismiss it and continue to uphold your dogmatic beliefs.
Oh, now you will say ''Dogmatic? You're being dogmatic about evolution.'' No. That's not what dogma is. Dogma is irrational. The observation of evolution is not.
Oh yeah, and also, a mule cannot breed, a mule is not a species, it lacks the correct chromosomes to breed :/ (You probably won't grasp that either, you'll be saying ''Chromosomes don't exist, the aliens make us!''
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I must ask you this why do insist on giving me none of the evidence that you claim exists? You have done nothing but attack me. I am still waiting to here the evidence. If you can provide any I will be more than willing to listen to what you have to say. What I mean by evidence, is not that it is a well accepted theory.
How can you say I have no interest in truth? If that were the case, I would have simply stopped debating this. But I must ask that you stop attacking me and focus solely on the topic at hand being evolution.
No, I cannot explain WHY gravity happens, neither can you explain WHY evolution happens. You continue arguing that it is true because it is true. This is a logical fallacy which holds no water.
No, that is not the sort of Lawyer I would be. you say ignore the evidence, yet you fail to provide me with any. If this analogy, I do not know that the murderer was found at the scene covered in to victim's blood holding the dagger, because you have failed to provide me with an such information. Whenever you provide me that information I will look at it.
You tell me that irreducible complexity is non-sense, but you do not tell me how. For me to believe you, I must know how it is non-sense before I can believe it. Telling me that he is a creationist pretending to be a scientist is no such evidence. The fact that it gets no recognition in the scientific community also not evidence enough to prove it is non-sense.
I must repeat my earlier question and ask that you stop using logical fallacies to win this debate. Also, I ask that you answer the questions in my first post of how you explain how something can come from nothing? and the questions that follow.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Name one that can.
All established scientific theories are falsifiable. As well, they are considered tentative(by law in the US), progressive and dynamic. Therefore, they are highly mutable and cannot truly be known.
1) "by law in the US", Us law has absolutely nothing to do with science.
2) If you take the angle that nothing can be proven (which is a completely useless mode of thought), than there is never any reason to assert anything whatsoever. You might as well stop thinking at that point.
Side note: math can be proven.
Science can reasonable prove many things. Religion cannot prove anything, not even close. All it can do is make self-reinforcing, non-falsifiable claims. Which leads me to say: "What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Yes, I do take that angle. Such is what pushes me to quest for more knowledge, more evidence. There is no proof in reality, only evidence and either belief or non-belief in said evidence. How can one dismiss evidence and assert opinion as truth?
Yes, I do take that angle. Such is what pushes me to quest for more knowledge, more evidence.
Knowledge and evidence becomes meaningless if you think that nothing can be proven and that you cannot trust your senses.
Everything you learn will be of no value, and everything you do will be futile.
There is no proof in reality, only evidence and either belief or non-belief in said evidence.
What value is evidence if you cannot trust it? How do you know evidence even exists if you can't even be sure you exist? (see how pointless it is to think that way?)
How can one dismiss evidence and assert opinion as truth?
I never asserted an opinion as truth. I assert scientifically reasoned logic as truth.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
How is agreement with a theory not opinion?
How is critical thinking futile and pointless?
I find it odd how you assume that lack of proof would nullify both knowledge and evidence.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
These comments are funny... all the atheists demanding proof that can never exist and all the theists offering theories as evidence. The atheists rebut with beliefs born of evidence, to which I retort, "We are all free to believe the evidence we choose to agree with. Neither side of the argument can be proven."
Are they not both just collections of agreed upon theories?
No, they aren't. Religion has a hypothesis, that under any reasonable test fails. Religion postulates and asserts what it cannot possibly know.
Also; What is your basis in denying an others evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) from their choice?
Anecdotal evidence is just that. I really don't need to say anything more.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
So, science doesn't postulate things it can never know and if it doesn't happen in a controlled, repeatable environment it's invalid.... interesting.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Coooooooool. By making your statement look visually edge-y, you feel it will be more appealing to a broader audience. Not the content of the words, but the fact that it looks neat.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
This is just existentialism people. Gotta love it. Not that the universe cares.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Damn straight, all you fuckers stop arguing and go out to a party and live it up! I think I'll crack open that six pack.
ALL OF YOU WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD CAN TELL HIM WHY YOU DIDN'T THINK HE EXISTS WHEN YOU DIE :)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
1. There is a representative number of Christians in prison, but a lower-than-representative number of atheists. One interpretation of that data is that people who determine their own moral codes are, on average, actually MORE committed to them. This is not to say that Christian morality isn't meaningful to some people, but the suggestion that "God" is the only thing keeping people from raping and pillaging is patently false.
2. There are a few rules that are almost universal to humans, spanning many religions and lack thereof. These rules include: Don't kill people (outside of very narrow parameters), cheat people, or falsely accuse people. These might be seen as manifestations of the moral hardwiring of our species. Humans, like all social mammals (including dogs), have evolved certain pro-social behaviors and aversions. Left to their own devises, people will still adhere to that hard-wiring.
3. "Moral relativism" applies only to behaviors outside of that "don't hurt people" hard-wiring. This is why different cultures have taboos that seem ridiculous out of context. (But why, Leviticus, must I avoid contact with the tribe while I am menstruating?) The morally relative aspects of culture have to do mostly with roles, sex, and the conventions of daily life. This poster is simply advocating that we regard these conventions critically.
4. No, atheism is not a religion or even quite a world-view, though it could be an aspect of either. There are many ways to be an atheist.
5. This poster is attractive, and I think we could all use the reminder, from time to time, that we are free. I quite like the line about making, rather than finding, yourself. Nicely done.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Egarim (mirage backwards? any particular reason for this?), amen to that. Although I may not have been so dramatic or well-spoken when expressing my similar beliefs, I wholeheartedly agree.
I read this poster and thought: "Wow, this poster has some interesting points, and I wonder what I can do to apply these ideas to my everyday life while still holding onto my personal beliefs."
I did not feel any reason to think: "Whoa, that poster is wrong and bad and I must preach my religion." Nor did I think: "Whoa, this poster is right and anyone who disagrees is obviously a brainwashed Christian who is too uneducated to understand anything."
Now, first off let me say I doubt anyone who read this poster actually thought any of these things I have just said, but... The comments to this poster have just been so absurd I felt some need to throw in my two cents.
Just because someone believes in God or in a god does not mean they have been brainwashed.
Likewise, just because someone does not believe in God or a god or anything at all does not mean they have the soul of the anti-Christ.
I guess I am just not jaded enough yet to make such blanket assumptions (though that may in itself be a blanket assumption). I have never been one to preach any of my own opinions seriously, although I have recently noticed that the most interesting people are those that do preach or presume their world view to and of others. So I guess what I'm saying is, it's best to have an opinion, and it's best to tell people about it, but you should not be mean when someone does not share your opinion.
Of course, that is an opinion and it is possible to disagree with that.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
You are born into a religion. It doesn't mean it has to be followed. People get mad at others for not following a religion even though they have no choice what they were born into. If you were born the son of a don in the Mafia, does it mean you have to follow in their beliefs? Does crime become right because you were born into it?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Interesting fact: The book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament begins by saying life is meaningless, and this is repeated as a theme throughout the book. This is not a new concept.
Just a thought: If we need to make our own meaning in life why did the artist spend time and energy telling other people how they should live their lives?
Personal belief: It is in man's best interest to place hope in some sort of higher truth. Some sort of supreme good. It keeps people sane. It is not an average person who can live a satisfying, happy life without believing in something. In fact, I think it is extremely uncommon. Religion has its faults; people abuse its powers and distort its vision, but that does not make religion or theistic points of view evil.
No, we cannot prove there is a God, or multiple gods, or any other type of non-physical being for that matter, but we also cannot disprove it.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It seems you're all wrong. These arguments are pointless.
The atheists continue to believe that they are free from brainwashing and can live under their own accord, yet they are slaves to their own weakness as they continue to argue, debate or rather, "convert" those that follow theistic beliefs. Christians are always perceived as the ones obsessed with converting others to their religion, and here the atheists work to a similar end: converting the religious to "non-religion". You change the way you play, but it seems the game remains the same.
The theists have turned faith into a twisted game of right and wrong. Backed up by logic or not, you shame the very things you believe in. Faith is necessary in certain circumstances. I know people in my life that would not be alive today if it weren't for belief. Faith and hope can be senseless and illogical, but at the same time, it's because of these self-contained properties that make it so potent and powerful. Motivation needs constant renewal, faith and hope is simply immortal. It can overcome the harshest of times. It saves more lives than non-belief could ever hope to.
Regardless, it's this silly inability to accept other's beliefs, this pathetic little child's game that you people continue to play, with no real victory to be attained, that people will continue to go to war in the name of their beliefs. You may never accept it, but it's because of this kind of ignorance that humans will always die for nothing.
One day you will look death in the eye as you grow old and choke on your own saliva. I want you to stop and think if this was all worth it. You each think that your individual beliefs have given your life more meaning than the opposing side, but you fall to the same fate as you continue to waste your breaths. I, for one, will not be afraid when death comes, cause since my birth my existence had already been plagued by its touch... long before I came to be, people like you have roamed this earth and carried on the tradition of folly and stupidity.
The atheists continue to believe that they are free from brainwashing and can live under their own accord, yet they are slaves to their own weakness as they continue to argue, debate or rather, "convert" those that follow theistic beliefs. Christians are always perceived as the ones obsessed with converting others to their religion, and here the atheists work to a similar end: converting the religious to "non-religion". You change the way you play, but it seems the game remains the same.
Right, so not debating anything in order to avoid disagreements is better? Fuck off, what a load of apathetic bullshit.
Faith is necessary in certain circumstances.
Fuck. No. It. Isn't.
I know people in my life that would not be alive today if it weren't for belief.
Nice, you're asserting your anecdotal evidence to back this claim? Faith is necessary because without it you'd be dead? Your weaknesses in no way validates any such those beliefs.
Faith and hope can be senseless and illogical, but at the same time, it's because of these self-contained properties that make it so potent and powerful.
Psychotic episodes and delusions can be equally "powerful", I guess that makes them good and useful?
Motivation needs constant renewal, faith and hope is simply immortal.
Yours might, what does this have to do with anyone else?
It saves more lives than non-belief could ever hope to.
Bullshit, you've just made a completely baseless claim.
Regardless, it's this silly inability to accept other's beliefs, this pathetic little child's game that you people continue to play
Right, it's far less childish to believe in whatever you want. If I want to believe that drinking some wine (and pretending it's the blood of some 2000 year old dead guy that's supposedly the son of the creator of the universe, who is actually himself, and who died and flew up in to the sky after being killed by the Romans) every Sunday will lead to my eternal (after)life.. that's not just insane, that's just factually wrong. I will not 'just accept' someone else's delusions, nor will I allow these ideas to be perpetuated unabated.
If someone tells me "2 + 2 = 5", I will absolutely correct their error in judgement.
You may never accept it, but it's because of this kind of ignorance that humans will always die for nothing.
Without religion there would be no suicide bombers, there would be no killing in the name of god. THERE WOULD BE NO SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS. I'm so sick of this fucking argument that we would still kill without religion, obviously we would, since we already do, but guess what, the number of attacks and murders would drop substantially as we wouldn't be fighting over who's invisible man in the sky is the real one.
One day you will look death in the eye as you grow old and choke on your own saliva. I want you to stop and think if this was all worth it. You each think that your individual beliefs have given your life more meaning than the opposing side, but you fall to the same fate as you continue to waste your breaths. I, for one, will not be afraid when death comes, cause since my birth my existence had already been plagued by its touch... long before I came to be, people like you have roamed this earth and carried on the tradition of folly and stupidity.
Good job projecting your own feelings on me. I don't fear death. I don't believe in an afterlife. I know that when I die, my existence will be identical to how it was prior to my birth.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
"Do not let your life and your values and you actions" TYYYYYPPOOOOOOO.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I think what people mean when they say that atheism is a religion is that you atheists are the same sort of annoying shitheads that go to church every Sunday. Fuck me, you people are a great bunch of cunts.
Moral behavior is relative to external circumstances. It's called Subjective Moral Relativism, in opposition to Objective Moral Absolutism. There is no good and evil, only good decisions and bad decisions. If I kill somebody while trying to defend my life, I'm not a morally evil person. I'm a person who made a bad choice based on an external situation I had no personal control over. Life is gray, our perceptions change based on social structure. Evil does not, cannot and never will exist, nor will your idea of good. Morality changes based on the evolution of society. That my friends is called Social Evolution, it exists, it is a science. All things evolve, biological, technological, and sociological. Whether you like it or not. Look at the theory of networks, and how they evolve to meet the demands of the system. Morality is no different.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I would just like to say that I especially enjoy your font choices for this little rant...
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
philosophical debate aside, this really isn't a great example of typography. too many different and annoying clashing fonts.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
What a load of junk. Read some Chesterton.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I love this and for those who question it should become more secure about their beliefs and move on.
Can people do that? Most cant, their ego screams at them NOT TO!
I love this only because it's genius and though I do not agree with all of it,
I accept the people who do for I am secure with MYSELF. :)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
This is a very strong opinion considering how many people follow a religion. Belief in something has helped people cope with their lives and hope when they think there is no hope left. There is no definite answer. Just as there is no proof that there is a God, there is no proof that there isn't one, or one of many. It's like your imposing your belief as the ultimate truth of the world, when truth is merely in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes believing in nothing helps you live your life more, sometimes believing in something does the same. It's different for each person. This is a very cool poster though and definitely speaks volumes about the artist's creativity. :)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Looks like Dafont threw up all over a GoMedia page.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
this is why everyone hates atheists
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Go read some Rene Descartes. Understand that empiricism is proven from circular reasoning. It is irrational to believe that the universe is explainable through empirical observation. In fact, a lot of science today is based off of unobservable phenomena to the human senses. Reality is an illusion so you should go out and make of it what you will, but do not belittle it with the arrogant idea that we humans have figured it all out by just tossing aside any idea that we might disagree with when it comes to things that we just cannot know for sure. You should also take a look at Robert Anton Wilson's "Maybe Logic". He is a very intelligent man and talks about everything from religion to quantum physics. I will agree with you though, Atheism is not a religion just the same as Buddhism is not a religion.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
neoform your the best!
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
As a student and academic philosopher, I have to say I'm a tad disappointed in this kind of thinking. The main message is good -- live deliberately, you are free -- but this notion that meaning is entirely man-made and therefore nothing has meaning is a grave philosophic mistake.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
morals and values are man made, they are made by you. no way of getting out of it. you see someone get stabbed in front of you A) you help victim, MAKING a moral stance that this should not happen cause it's wrong B) you help bad guy, MAKING a moral stance that this is not only a good thing but should be done because it's right C) you do nothing...i guess you've got issues, or are unable to actually do anything about it.
stop arguing about religion and beliefs. this poster should be saying "believe in whatever the hell you want." if thinking that someone else is watching after you, making sure life goes well for you...awesome, why not? if believing that you make your own choices and shape your own destiny....even better in my opinion.
only crappy thing (someone already stated) is enforcing a belief on someone or having a "i'm right you suck" argument.
listen to people, be aware, try to actually enjoy other human beings, throw out new ideas to people but don't tell someone the answer unless the day comes when you can prove, undeniably, that it is right and prove how everything else is wrong. until that day, start arguing about why there's more people yelling at each other than people supporting each other
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
God is the singularity from which the Big Bang erupted, that from which the universe was born, and thus, everything the universe now holds.
Is that the same god that loves you and will give you eternal life (only after you die, of course)?
Yeah, that god doesn't exist and is clearly the fabrication of humans that fear death and loneliness.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
you suck at spelling.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
None of this is about intellect or higher education. What are you trying to prove? Your awaiting someone's evidence that there is a god? What the fuck does that mean? I have no personal preference to any religion. I'm just happy to walk outside and breath fresh air. I'm amazed when the seasons change. I'm in awe of the world around us. Sure I have questions, but they will remain unanswered until I die. So give it up. Believing in God literally saves people's lives. Stop trying to take that away from them.
on the other hand, it sure does result in a whole lot of killing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
I could go on and on.
So here's a question: what does religion give you that you wouldn't have without religion?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
neoform... you're accusing 'religion' for all those events and while that might be accurate it is only because of the corrupt men who instigated them, HOWEVER, they were only acting under the guise of 'religion'. While they were horrible events preformed in the name of religion most religions DO NOT preach violence (rather the exact opposite.) Christianity has got it the worst and one of it's biggest obstacles is its reputation. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. all were horrible events instigated by 'Christians' but at the same time not at all Christianity's or God's fault; rather they were the wills of corrupt men. Man is to blame and not God. Christians, in my opinion, should not be out trying to convert people these days but apologizing for the horrible things done in the Lord's name.
neoform... you're accusing 'religion' for all those events and while that might be accurate it is only because of the corrupt men who instigated them,
Isn't it amazing how you can always attribute the actions to 'the few', meanwhile ignoring what actually drove them to do it. When you teach someone that an invisible man in the sky loves you, and will give you eternal life if you spread the word of his existence (amazing how an omnipotent being would need you to do that for him)... then you accuse him of being corrupt when he goes on a killing spree trying to convert everyone, and kill those that don't accept their new 'beliefs'...
Religion teaches us to believe the random thoughts in our heads are voices from the 'creator'. Religion teaches us to act in unquestioning and uncritical ways. Religion is poison.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
When typography is involved, proper spelling is a must.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I concur, in saying that other religious statements are false, you have also claimed yours to be true. If what you say is true then we are not free at all, rather bound by the "reality" that you have given the illusion of freedom to.
If this is indeed a world free from morals, purpose, and and ultimate goal, then we are free from nothing, but joy and meaning in life.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Disregarding the attempts at intellectual postulation in the comments section..This poster is great- inspiring complete liberation from chains which bound many. I think Sartre would smile.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
You people and your bickering are giving Atheists a bad name; because of you and people like you, "Atheist" has become synonymous with "Dick".
Thanks, guys.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Take a Dale Carnegie course. There is no point in arguing with religious zealots whatsoever.
New Testament at least... Old Testament is merely a record of events
It must be nice living in a world where things are the case just because you want them to be so. I bet if you wish hard enough you'll live forever. hahahahahahahahahaha
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Why did this get labeled as "Philosophy"? This is more like "the Complete Ignorance of Philosophy".
This is more like "the Complete Ignorance of Philosophy".
Nah, that's the title you give to religion.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I completely agree with you. Religion is a horrible man made institution. However, there is a difference between religion and faith. Go think about that for a while.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Funny. I really can't put my finger on it, but are you people chasing the truth or imposing the meaning to be the one who's Right about this?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
This picture kind of bothers me. Emotions are not man-made; they're a byproduct of our long-term development as a species. What dictates purpose is essentially what spurs your emotions, and what spurs your emotions is dictated by what helps you survive and live prosperously. This in turn implies that morality could be worked out by what makes the human species survive the most efficiently and live the most prosperously, all from a naturalistic, secular basis.
Sure, there isn't such thing as a purpose or some predefined "order of things" for the greater universe, but mankind itself is pretty deeply pre-defined by our evolution. We aren't all that varied by what makes us tick, so to imply such individualism (as in this picture) seems like an illusion in and of itself.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Existentialism, indeed. The philosophy espoused here is so superficially sweet that it is difficult to dispute. Freedom, and making meaning for yourself, how beautiful. And yet, the discerning eye sees the fallacy.
Of all the Watchmen, the two that are the most similar are the Comedian and Rorschach. A hedonistic sociopath and a moralistic crusader. And the reason is that they both used the philosophy espoused here to come to their worldviews. The Comedian saw through the charade, the fakeness, the masquerade and realized that morality, ethics, this whole world was a joke. One big, cosmic joke. And so he took on his moniker, even though he told no jokes himself. Rorschach saw through the facade, and realized that this world had no morality, except what we decide to impose upon it. And without us, there is no morality. And so he literally was the Angel of Judgment and Death. He had to be the judge, jury and executioner, because he realized there would be none without him.
And as cool as Rorshach and the Comedian are, they are some messed up people. Enjoy your existentialism. If you actually believed it, you'd be messed up too.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Jesus you're all dumb fucks except Ganapati. No offence, but seriously, stop with the pseudo-intellectual talk, no-one on this page knows what they're talking about, you're just expressing opinions under the guise of fact.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
What's with this New Age BS? This is the sort of ignorant teenagers' "rebellious" thinking. If every people think like this then civilization will collapse. Nobody's completely free. We're all dependent lots of other people and other things. In order for you to life a huge complicated system, in which you're a part of, has to work. I'm not saying that the current system is perfect or right but at least you are here reading this sentence in (I hope) comfort and safety because of the system. By all means question the system, change the system, repair the system, but always remember that there are other people that will be affected by your decisions.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
This isn't New Age. It's post-modern. Large difference.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I agree a little with the Anonymous Dude. And by the way, people are FREE already. Everyone is free to choose what they want to do and what religion to follow. Yeah I know, religion has been used for centuries has an excuse to create wars. But the people who use religion for war are not religious. Because almost all religions have a message of love and understanding, its the people that distort those messages. Therefore its men who is rotten, men who are FREE, and choose to decide they are better than others, men who are FREE but take away your freedom. Let me tell you something, I believe in God, not a specific one, just God. I don't have proof of his existence but I choose to believe. That is me, and my choice.
So yes its good to be free, unless you are an ass hole.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
"Remember that to fight meaningless is futile, but fight anyway, inspite of and because of its futility."
That's pretty counterproductive. If you just accept that it's meaningless, then you don't have to fight at all. Yeeaahh.
Also, to go with the whole pedophile example, that's completely man-made. Just remember, several hundred years ago it was common for older men to marry young girls, even as young as 14 or 15, and it was not considered unusual. Is that "immoral"? Who prescribes morality? Man. Who wrote the bible? (Let's see if you can go 2 for 2)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Actually, if you had done any amount of research, you'd know that Christians believe we were only the tools implemented to write the Bible. (And don't get yourself all worked up about the term "tool," because that is simply to imply we used our own hands to physically write it.) The actual content was/is inspired by God himself. (New Testament at least... Old Testament is merely a record of events.) However, I completely agree with the pedophilia example... in a post-modernistic world there are essentially no morals.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
What post-modernistic puppets you all are... Have a great day! =)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
ITT we all recreate a 2000-year-old argument and get nowhere.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Huh... well then, forgive me for thinking your philosophy is absurdest for following a clever physicist who said
"There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle." ~ Albert Einstein
Nothing personal - just the fact that one quote is particularly pessimistic and comes from a seemingly obscure source on the internet that I stumbledupon and the other comes from a successful physicist who is widely known.
You also say:
"Deal with it. One day, you will die. You will not live forever. Everything you do will eventually be undone."
Which to me seems like a detrimental argument - you see Ganapati HAS dealt with it by coming to terms of living a fulfilling life that he enjoys through religion - whereas you are merely stating your opinion again like a broken record. It seems to me that YOU are the one who has to come to terms with how to live your own life. Generally it is frowned upon on society to give into whatever dark disturbing lust you have whether it be pedophilia, murder, or torturing someone else and society sets laws in place to discourage that.
If the universe has no importance then neither does our system as humans. Saying that a game of poker is stupid because the rules are largely based on luck is silly because some people find joy in that game. Saying that life is pointless is silly because there are many people who do *not* find it pointless.
You've probably grown quite defense by this point so I guess I'll just openly say that you seem to be an exemplary definition of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and it might be wise for you to realize that your not "one notch above the rest" per se just because you have decided to point fingers and claim that your religion of "non-religion" is the best...
FYI You said that not collecting stamps is NOT a hobby, but if your syllogism of a (cannot equal) b therefore b (cannot equal) c when c = a
Then your formula states that: NOT having a child is NOT parenting
Which is clearly false as the decision of abortion is a big one in parenting considering it decides jut how long they are going to have to parent that fetus/person.
Oh and the link for the Dunnning-Krueger Effect before I forget:
Thus really made me excited because its what I try to explain to myself all the time. :)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
This should just be called Existentialism.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Well said, I like the idea font size as well.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I hope you realize that, in refuting all the other major dogmas, you've created a dogma yourself and are telling people to follow it. Just saying.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 12 years ago
jeese. cant ANYONE just take this for face value and just move on?? noone cares about anyone else's opinion apperently, especially the stubborn, so just add this to your beliefs or dont, then shut up and move on.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Have to disagree with you there Anonymous Dude. Dogmas involve rules that apply to all individuals regardless of their persona or situation. To ask people to follow their 'authentic' selves, as it were, is exactly what he claims: Anti-dogmatic. Just saying ;)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
The rejection of belief is not a belief in itself. What your putting forward is akin to saying that not smoking is a habit, or not collecting coins is a hobby.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Lack of belief in God or anything else is a belief because you believe it's fake. You can't stop believing like you can smoking because belief is an idea and a very different concept than smoking or collecting something. You smoke or you don't but just because you don't smoke, it does not mean you believe it's wrong. To not have a belief is to not have an opinion on a subject at all. If you say something does not exist then you hold the belief that it does not exist there for believing. Also believing is not a choice if you are sane and you see the sun rise then you must believe the sun rises. However there are certain things you can choose to believe in, mostly things you can't see happening or verify them yourself. Atheism means no belief in a deity or deities and if you go by the very stupid notion that religion equates to belief then atheism would be considered a religion just as Buddhism or satanism believe in no higher power but are in fact religions.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Not smoking is a choice just as smoking is a choice.
There for not believing in anything is just as much of a choice as believing is.
ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION, get it in your fucking head.
Not playing hockey is not a sport. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Nothingness is not something. Null is not a number.
Fuck, why is this so hard for you dimwits to understand?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
everything is nothing, it is all an illusion that we try give meaning to. what im trying to say is that ur nothing means something to me and vica versa....... anyhow peace be with and take a chill pill
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
atheism isn't a religion, but it is a belief. you believe there is no god and choose to live as such. anger brings you nowhere, in fact, it probably humorous to the people you are trying to "convince"
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
my friend. atheism is just what is says. not theism. it is not a belief system. disbelief of religion is not a belief in and of itself.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 12 years ago
No, Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The lack of belief in a god could be qualified as agnosticism or atheism, but both are defined and very different. As such, you either need to accept that theism MAY be true and you just don't know, or assert that it is NOT true, which requires some evidence on your part. You aren't just given a free pass on this because.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
WOW seems like someone needs to jump on the happy train.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Nice to see you are able to make yourself superior to both sides.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Lack of belief is not a belief. At best, what is written on this art poster is like a sort of guess and shoulder shrug. After weighing the facts available, the author/creator has simply deduced a working philosophy; one that is far more logical and meaningful in the end than a theistic stance.
Is it nihilism? Not exactly. Nihilism is the belief that everything comes from nothing, is pointless and ultimately is destroyed. Has he said life is pointless? No, he said it means whatever you want it to mean.
And, by contrast, is eternalism any better? What is the point of living forever? Simply existing in perpetuity isn't any more meaningful than being mortal. Similarly, a theistic belief isn't any more meaningful since all meaning is arbitrary and subjective. In the end, they are equal, whether the meaning is ascribed by YOU or by "God." Meaning is ascribed by someone and someone exists for a period of time, imbuing his various actions with meaning of his choosing and whose choices affect those around him. They are equally meaningful or meaningless.
Atheism is, however, the more logical choice for the very obvious reasons that there are in reality no inherently existing things. An inherently existing thing could have no beginning, no end and no possibility of change. Yet, everything in the universe begins, changes and ends, existing only as very temporary phenomena in dependence upon other temporary phenomena. This flux appears to have existed eternally and, logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise. Therefore, God is a truly nonsensical concept in the most straightforward sense. But, then, we all knew that from the very simple question "if all things supposedly need a creator, who created the creator?"
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Your argument states that changes/states of flux are eternal. Thus through your argument, change is in fact an inherently existing thing since everything is and apparently has been changing with no apparent beginning and no apparent end in sight. Even the big bang is a continuous cycle with not apparent end or beginning, and because of that cycle the big bang's continuous and eternal state of change ensures that flux/change never will change.
mind fuck?!? thanks for the string of thought buddy
Negative. Not believing in religion is not a religion. FYI, 'not collecting stamps' is not a hobby.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
his/her point is not that of religion, the point was that we don't need to follow guidelines set by others and conform to society, we can make up our own morals. Atheism is a religion, its just not a main stream one
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
--American New Oxford Dictionary
...atheism is def not a religion
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
No you are wrong neoform, because your are creating your own religion by not believing, as much as you do not wish to believe it you are an atheist. Which is a religion, not a very knowledgeable one but is still a religion.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Read my other post that explains my point. "Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency,[1] or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.[2] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature."
That is the definition of religion it does not mean you must believe in something supernatural it just means you have to have beliefs about life in general through that definition atheism is a religion which isn't a bad thing you just hate the word and you know it.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Actually Ryan, If you look at the facts, Atheism is the more knowledgeable one as we have more "factual" evidence of our beliefs (or non-beliefs). If you choose to believe that there is an invisible man in the sky that can listen to all we say and do at all times it is called religion. If you choose not to... it is atheism, plain and simple. Then again, I guess it would all depend on the your definition of the word "religion". Why don't you look it up for yourself.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
has anyone noticed that the ones arguing for atheism, seem to harbor a lot of animosity towards anyone that does not share their own beliefs, while the "others" seem to be quite pleasant and non-darrogatory , i found this humorous
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
But atheists, historically, have never taken that animosity further by organising a crusade, or placing a jihad upon a person or group. Traditionally the concept of "believe what I tell you, or I'll hurt you" has been the practise for most religions. And even cases in recent history as well as today, this is demonstrated. (Belgrade, Bahgdad, Bombay, Beirut, Belfast and Bethlehem to name a few...)
There's a reason 'the burden of proof arguement' is a favourate one amongst atheists, because acknowledging 'fact' through 'proof' and 'evidence' has been pretty successful in bringing us useful medicine, and astounding sciencfic knowledge, as well as being one of the best trains of thought to have been conceptualised in the history of man.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 11 years ago
Hey, has anyone noticed all those places begin with 'b', and 'b' is the first letter of 'bumble-bee'??? This is a totally irrelevant, fallacious argument, feel free to ignore.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Communism is responsible for quite a few dead and is based on athism as much as the evils done by Christians is based on what Jesus taught.
I'm an atheist alright, but atheism isn't a religion. Notice how you didn't capitalize the word "atheist"? Think about that for a second.
Also note that 'religion' is defined as a belief in a super natural being or beings. Atheists do not believe in ghosts, gods or goblins or any other fairy tales, and we do not ascribe to any religion.
Like I said, atheism is as much of a religion as 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I would agree with you that atheism isn't a religion, but it is a worldview. The funny thing is, the theist has more logic/reason than you do to support their worldview! I doubt you have any sort of reason to think God does not exist. But what does it matter? You are already dead. Any effort you put in this world, you are just wasting time till the inevitable heat-death and cosmic expansion of the universe. You do not even know the inevitable consequences your worldview MUST imply.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Logic?! Reason?!?! Are you serious!? I think you should read the bible again. If you look at it from a logical standpoint and a higher intelligence quotient than 65 you would be able to see that it resembles fairy tales quite strikingly.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Ha, atheism isnt a world view, it is simply not believing in a god. that is all it is. and how can you say theists have more logic than atheists? the whole point of religion is that there is a certain amount of belief involved. and belief is not logical.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
World-view: A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.
Don't be an idiot and deny that being an atheist isn't a world-view. And while you are correct that being an atheist is simply not believing in a god everyone adds a twist to it "God is fake evolution is true!" or "Evolution and god don't exist life is nothing" so on and so forth. Belief is logical. I believe the sun rises every day. I believe that if I put my hand on a hot stove it will hurt. Belief is part of life kiddo. Get used to it, oh and start using your goddamn brain.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
those were legitimately the most faulty analogies ever. nice try
No you don't, you know the sun rises every day, you know the stove is hot.
How do you know these things? You can scientifically conclude this through experimentation and logical deduction.
Too many people confuse what they know with what they believe. Then they take the word "faith" and make it synonymous with "belief", and make it seem like it's normal and logical to believe in something that cannot in any way, shape or form, prove the existence of a supernatural being.
If you believe in god(s), feel free to point out why YOUR god is the right one, and how every other god(s) out there is wrong.
I await your evidence.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Your argument takes place in a universe of constants, but that does not exist. No ones actually knows anything, they just believe in what they think they know. This belief in said "knowledge" comes from the accuracy and probability of said event occurring. If something occurs 9.99999... times out of 10, people make the generalization that it is a constant. That is Not the case. Said event just has a very high probability of occurring.
No one actually knows the sun will rise tomorrow, but the probability of it happening is very high. No one actually knows that touching a stove will burn them, not all stoves in the world are hot. Some of them are turned off.
Atheism is a belief, because of the variables of chance and probability. You do not actually know that there is no god. I do not actually know there is. Neither of us can actually prove either of our theories which we believe/put faith in.
Your are right about faith being a synonym to belief, but I am not sure why that is relevant to the actual logic of your argument.
*if we wanna get really picky about the world choice and syntax i use, we can interchange the term belief with world-view. I use the term belief generally and freely since i believe in thing and not world-view things.
Plus guys do not get mad about all this god, no god stuff. Ill go ahead and spoil all the mystery for you. God is Dr. Manhattan from the watchmen. See? now life is a who lot simpler. oh wait...no its not.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
An original thought here please, not something you've read in a book!
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Well damn it Neo iffen god dont exist whard all this cool stuff come from (:
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
well considering its all man-made, and all conscientious thought is built upon with every new idea, i'd deftly have to say that it came from one hell of a time
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so
Admittedly terms always kill an argument, unfortunately for you, you're wrong in this term.
I have confidence in the existence of the sun. So yeah, I believe in the reliability of the rising sun.
And while we are on the subject:
Faith-confidence or trust in a person or thing
Belief-confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
Look it up.
My evidence won't convince you because 1. it's too complicated to explain, and 2. you would say I'm wrong even though I'm right.
-facepalm- arguing with people is so pointless. I'm never going to change my mind and you will never change yours. Can we agree to disagree?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It is too complicated to explain? Or too silly for someone with a higher intellect and maybe a little education to "believe"
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
While I agree that atheism isn't a religion, it does require faith. It's a philosophical idea that you can't disprove something by saying, "I've never seen it." In order to 100% disprove the existence of any god, you would have to have complete, all encompassing knowledge of everything created. This would make you omnipotent, and therefor, the equivalent of a god. Atheism ultimately boils down to the following of reason until you're forced to make a leap of faith. Anyone who says "There might be a god, but I'm waiting for evidence." is agnostic, and lives in a constant state of doubt. There is no faith in that. That is lukewarm. To make a stand, one way or another, is to have faith, whether it is in the affirmative or the negative.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
@neoform. I agree with every single comment you have made, and am very impressed by the energy you've put into debating with these people. It's sad how obvious religious brainwashing is to those who are not under it's spell. Atheism is not a religion - it's simply the lack of belief in any gods. All morality is man-made. It simply evolves over time. Thats why things that are not acceptable today, were commonplace hundreds of years ago. The truth is still the truth, even when no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even when everyone believes it.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Beautifully said Derrick. And yes, the brainwash is unfortunate and only changeable by another brainwash of equal integrity in most cases... then whats the point? I think the ideal goal in my opinion would be for people to let go of all ego and learn to think for themselves. I'm seeing it slowly manifest itself more and more in my puny 30 years of life so it looks hopeful for the future.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I think Kyle and Derrick just fell in love! aww, gayness..the ultimate slap in the face of average joe!
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
We were put here on this Earth for one purpose and one purpose only, to serve the Lord Jesus Christ!!!!
Bickering is a waste of time. Who cares what anyone else believes? What's important is that you believe whatever it is you believe, and that you are at home in it. Forcing one's opinion on others, either for or against deity, is a base human behavior. I mean seriously. We can be better than that. Maybe if we didn't occupy ourselves so much with telling other people what they should and should not believe, we could take the time to get closer to God or ourselves or whatever it is that floats your boat. Then, maybe, we can move forward together.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Ah, post modernism is a joke! Your philosophical thought is a false. Your basis of thought is that all ideas are relevant. How is that possible? That would mean your thought process is possible and then that makes an infinite number of ideas possible.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
No, his "basis of thought" is that someone else's belief shouldn't be important to you, your belief should be the only belief that is important to you.
He says that basically, don't shove your beliefs down others' throats.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
This is Camus, bastards!
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Yeah I noticed that too.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Finally, I can live my dream of being a pedophile and sex offender and there is nothing anyone can do about it! I mean, there are no morals, right? In the absence of God, all things are permitable. All meaning is man-made, therefore any meaning I create for myself is just as equal as anyone elses. There is no "good" or "better" meaning, to each his own. Wow, this is great : )
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Where do you come up with the idea that without god all things are permissible? You are still subject to your environment. That includes the father of the children you decide to sexually abuse. This common misunderstanding often coming from people with no foresight as to the consequences of there actions. If you are being "good" because you are afraid that a celestial being will throw you into a pit of fire if you're not then you are not, in fact, a good person by any standard.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Morality *is* man made because society ("man") creates the rules and standards that we should all live by. We all need to ensure survival by getting along with our fellow man in society. Face it, we need other people to survive. The survival instinct in us all has developed a higher morality (do unto others...) in order to keep us from being alienated. Some people do not have this innate sense of what is right and wrong. I am an atheist, I do not believe in god but I believe in treating my fellow man with respect and not killing and raping. It is offensive, to say the least, that you imply that simply because I do not have a god, I will be a horrible person. In fact, I have higher moral standards than 99% of the God-fearers I know because I know that people cannot forgive as easily as your alleged God. You believe God has your back, and I believe that my friends and family have my back. Please look into your own soul, or lack thereof, before you lump the godless with the insane.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
To say that your moral standards are above all "God-fearers" is complete ignorance. You make accusations on a religion that you do not understand. The Bible is pure stupidity for those who do not believe it. For you to make wild accusations about our moral standards is pure ignorance
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Society is not the same as an individual. Morality among the members benefits the society, but not necessarily all the individuals especially the stronger ones. In fact, the major beneciaries of morality and empathy are the weaker individuals. That seems to be a counter-evolutionary trend. However, morality, at least in-group morality, makes for stronger societies. So the source of morality cannot be individuals motivated by biological/evolutionary self-interest. There has to be a higher purpose, even something as low as the society that the individual is part of, but necessarily something higher than the individual himself/herself.
If you deny a higher purpose to your existence, as the picture here does, you are necessarily suspect about your morality. Reward and punishment (in the here of hereafter) etc are necessary only to force those that do not feel this higher purpose to act morally. But if you deny such a higher purpose AND have no fears you are justifiably a threat to the social order.
You say that only because you feel there needs to be one, not because there actually is a purpose, but instead because if there wasn't you'll feel everything you do is for nothing, which in the very long run, it essentially is.
Deal with it.
One day, you will die. You will not live forever. Everything you do will eventually be undone.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
No, I don't feel there needs to be one, I know there is one even if I don't know what it is. For morality to exist a higher purpose is a LOGICAL necessity. It is with reference to the higher purpose is how we can judge right or wrong of individual actions. So anyone who feels a strong urge to live morally feels this purpose, even if he/she doesn't know it. You may yourself not feel it, but I suspect most living creatures other than humans don't feel it either, so I am not surprised some humans don't.
The individual cells in my body die much sooner than I do. But they have a purpose while they live, to keep me alive. Their work isn't undone as soon as they die and my work doesn't get undone when I die. I don't have a problem in dealing with my mortality.
I find it hilarious that people like you who believe your life has no essential purpose, trying to convince others their doesn't either. Why are you so desperate to convince others that their lives are meaningless? By your own claims people can invent any meaning for their lives as they please. So what exactly is your problem if they invent a meaning that attributes a meaning to the universe itself? Or is that unable to discover the meaning yourself, you are trying to convince yourself that no one else has either?
I love it when that happens, you have no logical reason whatsoever to believe something is the case.. YOU JUST DO.
Is it like a premonition, or intuition..? Does your gut tell you?
I wish I had the power to JUST KNOW THINGS like that. Maybe I could prove the poincare conjecture that way..
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
To suggest that you have morality by your own means it is false, because your a making it by your means making it only based upon your judgement. Your morality you make up is either in your head or made by the world, or by God. If it is made by either of the first two it is meaningless. because you have no end result.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
You either don't feel an internal urge to act morally or you are simply incapable of understanding logic.
An urge to act morally cannot be explained in terms of anything drawn from evolutionary biology, much like evolutionary biology itself cannot be derived from laws of physics.
If a being acts in a way that doesn't benefit its genes and is internally compelled to do so, there logically has to be some other purpose it is trying to fulfil a purpose not of its own making.
Even if you personally felt moral compulsions, you would recognise others do. So if you were scientific minded, you would accept the evidence. However, you are desperate to erase the evidence or try to deny it exists.
You either don't feel an internal urge to act morally or you are simply incapable of understanding logic.
Nice assertion, lemme do the same thing you just did:
Either you're ugly, or an idiot.
See what I did there? I postulated two options, and asserted them as being the only two options.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Let me try some logic on you. If you still don't get it, I will probably try to explain the Theory of Relativity to a few chimpanzees. I may have a better chance in that attempt.
Some human beings act morally i.e., in a way that benefits others but at no personal benefit to their genes. This many do voluntarily and not out of any fear of punishment or lure of reward. So there must exist a purpose higher than the individuals in question from which they derive their morality.
Now, if you can find anything factually or logically wrong with what has been stated in the above paragraph, I am willing to spend another second here. Otherwise chimpanzees may prove better capable of logical comprehension. I am not exactly on a mission to convince the entire illogical retarded bunch in the world.
here's a tiger that lost her baby, so now she has surrogate children (pigs).
Not to mention, raising someone elses child has its evolutionary backing: legacy.
If legacy drives you, then fine, but that's YOUR choice, not THE choice. Everyone is different.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Neoform, I don't think you've said anything with substance throughout these entire conversations. All I see here is a lot of rhetoric and colorful phraseology.
Ganapati, you won't get through to anyone that just doesn't understand the laws of logic.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Initially I pegged you as an idiot. But I now know you are a clever manipulator. Rather than accept that you are spouting absurdities, you want to keep side-stepping the issues raised. Since you can't find anything factually or logically wrong with what I stated, you want to side-step it by introducing things which actually reinforce what I said, but pretend they somehow are counter examples.
Raising someone else's child is not the only instance of moral behaviour. And voluntarily raising someone else's child has no evolutionary backing. The instances like cuckoo children being hatched and raised are explained as evolutionary deceptive strategies that cuckoos have mastered that the others fall prey to.
The instances like what you quoted are things that cannot be explained by evolutionary impulses except probably to say that the child generates the same odours that fool the foster mother into believing it is its own. Looked at another way, the higher purpose is felt not just by some human beings, but also by some animals.
However, you can't explain why someone would voluntarily not take something that belongs to someone else without the owner's permission.
I never said consciously following the higher purpose was not a choice. It is a choice, some do choose to live like crooks, murdering and plundering others. They are even desperate to reduce others to their disgusting level of existence by denying such a higher purpose exists. But in a funny way, when you succeed in popularising your view you would served the very higher purpose whose existence you deny. Western societies that have exercised morality at an individual level and a disgusting display of immorality at the level of societies will eventually collapse and allow morality at both the level of individuals and societies to be re-established in the world.
So, I whole-heartedly support your deception! Good luck!
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
humans have this strange ability to EMPATHIZE with one another and other creatures, most of the time what stops people from raping, murdering and pillaging is the knowledge that they would not like it done to them or that they would not like it one to someone they know. This empathy is enabled by an imagination, because you can imagine what it would be like for you if, heaven forbid, a godless atheist should rape you. You know that it wouldn't be very pleasant and as a result refrain from doing so to others. Humans are social creatures, and rely on one another for survival. So for any chance of a successful society humans need to be able to live cohesively, and so those humans that could live amicably with one another, those with empathy, were naturally selected to survive.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
In the last sentence in the previous comment there is a 'no' missing between 'felt' and 'moral'.
If the only reason you do good things and avoid doing bad this, is because you fear reprimand from your god, that is very sad indeed.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Careful there! A pedophile's own morality wouldn't categorise his/her actions as bad. He/She has a different morality. Exactly by what 'standards' would you categorise such actions as bad?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Following God's law in Christianity is not a chore. Christians know that the law has no power over them. To know the Triune God, is to know true peace.
Disturbing thought. You feel an invisible man in the sky has control over you...
how sad.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I want to ask this to probe your mind a little. I implore you to be a little open-minded with this question. Suppose you are wrong? What if there is a God? What are the consequences of your not believing? Now, what if I'm wrong? What are the consequences if there is no God and my beliefs are false? If you are wrong you spend eternity in hell. If I'm wrong I simply die and decay. Doesn't it seem more worthwhile to believe?
If you believe in god solely because you figure it's better to believe than not to... then you really don't believe. In which case, IF (and that's a huge if) god exists, don't you think he'd see through your game?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
You misunderstand the argument I'm making. I'm not saying to believe just to believe. By my question, does it not make more since to believe that God is the God of the universe and that he sent his son Jesus because he loved you and wanted to spend eternity. Does it not make more sense to generally believe that? Also, you have once again conveniently ignored the question I asked. I want your answer to the question. Not somebody else's answer through wikipedia, I want your genuine answer to the question.
a side note question, what is the difference between believing and pretending to believe? because you are pretending to believe your actions will still reflect your pretend belief, in essence your pretend belief is not different than believe.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
you get off by being condescending?, its really quite pathetic
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Disturbing though. You feel life is pointless and people can murder pillage and rape to their hearts content...
Where do you people come from? Do you wander the streets yelling at stop signs for being too red?
This image very clearly states that you need to make your own meaning and fill your life with happiness and not expect it to come from nowhere.
AT NO POINT DOES ANYONE SAY IT'S OK TO RAPE, MURDER AND PILLAGE, YOU FUCKING TWIT.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
to help out mister Average idiot. Just as you are not saying that life is pointless and people can murder pillage and rape to their hearts content, neither is he saying that we feel we are controlled by an invisible man.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
-shrugs- saying morals are man-made gives anyone free reign to do as they please. Stop being a fucking idiot and think about it: if there is no God, no standard for morality, THEN THERE IS NO FUCKING REASON NOT TO RAPE, MURDER, AND PILLAGE! Unless you feel like conforming to what society says; at which point you aren't really free.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Morality IS intrinsic. Riddle me this: how is that you decide that the moral code of the Bible is good and applicable? You decide it's good because you ALREADY have an inherent sense of morality. You didn't use the Bible to decide the Bible's moral code was good, right? You decided before you knew what the whole book had to say, i'm sure.
It breaks down like this: If everyone followed a particular moral code, no matter how dubious, how would the world fair as a result? If all society breaks down under its scripture, then the morality doesn't work in society. People understand how to act (i.e. don't lie, be altruistic, consider other's opinions) because these are ways that allow people to function in society as a whole. Everyone WANTS everyone else to be moral because it is USEFUL to have everyone think this way. The truth of the matter is, this is how things really are.
Stupid Example: Is there a rule that says people have to wait in line at gas stations for service? Nope. It's just a useful, easy to understand way to act. So, everyone follows suit. Same goes for the rapin', murderin', and lyin'. If everyone lied, then lies would lose their meaning and it would be incredibly difficult to communicate. Try only speaking lies and going to the grocery store, try driving on the other side of the street. It won't work. Why? Because everyone else is ON THEIR OWN following common morality to make their own lives easier and, by proxy, everyone else's.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
The entire basis of your argument is fallacious. Morality is in no intrinsic. Think about it, when growing up you were told to stop doing bad things all the time by your parents. you were taught how to be good and moral whilst there was no training needed for you to be bad. you say, try driving on the opposite side of the street. It won't work. Why? Not because everyone else is on their own following common morality. No. It is because a higher authority, such as someone who designs roads, decided it would be best to drive on the right side. It's actually a law to do that, not just following common morality. You may not have needed to be trained to understand this law, but through observation on the law working you figured it out. Therefore, God had to give us a set of rules, because man was chaotic and immoral. Now, you mat not believe in God. Let me put it this way to you then. Some random higher authority decided to keep humanity from just killing everyone and doing wrong all the time that he would put some nice rules in order for us to follow.
Morals, like everything else in society are created over a long period of time and improved upon generation after generation. This is why in the past slavery was deemed morally fine, yet today it is not. (Ever wonder why slavery is in the bible and apparently god is cool with it?)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Yes, I have wondered why slavery is in the Bible. So I sought answers, have you? Our beliefs on slavery are not the same as they were then, or at least the way God desired it to be. A slave was simply someone who, more or less, worked for someone else and lived with them. Similar to the way slaves were as the way we know them, however slaves for "Christian" people were not to be treated horribly, and they were not. They were treated well, fed well and lived well. A slave was also generally someone who was in debt to the person who owned them. They were working to pay off there debt. This may not be the case for the non-Christian people, but that is not of whom I'm speaking. They were not in the business of buying and selling slaves to do all their work for them.
slaves could also buy there freedom which is not the case as we generally look at slavery. In this view of slavery, as it was then, there existed nothing wrong.
A slave was simply someone who, more or less, worked for someone else and lived with them
LOL, riiiiight... how do you think the pyramids were built? With sunshine and happiness?
slaves for "Christian" people were not to be treated horribly
ROFL, you're a joke dude. You can't seriously believe that tripe..
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Once again I implore you to stop using logical fallacies to attempt to win your argument. What I'm mean by this is that saying I am a joke does nothing to disprove anything I have said, and it does nothing for you. no one will listen to anything you have to say if all you do is attack the other person. Stop!
Pyramids were built with slaves. these slaves were treated badly most of the time. This is also not the slavery that, as you say, "God was cool with." God is very much not cool with that sort of slavery. However, in argument I made I told you what sort of slavery he was okay with, and people were not necessarily following this, which is why he laid out guidelines for slaves and their masters. As I said before, the part you probably ignored because you were unsure how to refute it, slaves, the salves I am speaking of were in debt to their masters. They were slaves because they owed some amount of money or something else to their owner. They way, in those times, that the person worked it off was by becoming their slave. Working for them to pay off their debt to one day buy their freedom from their debt.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
How about "I don't want to rape anyone because I don't think it's right to hurt people"?
If there is no standard for morality, then yes. You're right. But there is, it's called Humanity. We can do what we want, but even the most atheist of atheists knows it's wrong to rape someone.
For the record, (so you know my stance), I am agnostic, that wonderful lukewarm label. But that's all it is: a label. I don't really care for religion, but I won't disrespect it.
That said, I don't really believe in your God, so does that make me a rapist?
Morals ARE man made. Religions simply echo the moral knowledge we already had.
Allow me to give you an example of this: The bible says murder is wrong, and you agree, it is...
Except...
Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Suddenly, I'm not so sure what to think. After all, if I'm deriving my morality from the bible, I'm suddenly given moral permission to murder people for these seemingly random acts. Working on a Sunday is reason to kill? Wow, and you're accusing me of having no morals...
It's pretty obvious to me that everyone has intrinsic moral sensibilities and that we pick and choose what we agree with from books like the bible or order to reinforce our moral beliefs.
In the end, we all have morals, and we have them because it allows us to operate in a society, without them, society would not work. None of this has anything to do with god or gods.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Actually, sir, though I understand your point in itself, it's a bit fallacious to make the jump as you have. I agree with what you say about morality being intrinsically societal, but the jump you make between "shall surely be put to death" and "murder" is one that is surely fallacious. Obviously, it is interdependent on your connotative definition of each of the words -- Wittgenstein would agree, and most likely tell you the argument is unnecessary as words never truly mean what we intend them to -- but ultimately, what you've said here means that punishment is the same as crime. Unless you're one who equates all human death as murder, then this logic cannot follow. Your argument is essentially saying that punishment of death is murder, and is immoral. Many might agree, but this is subjective. You've simply brought up a biblical image of the modern day argument for or against capital punishment. These scriptures by no means give a "license to kill" as your insinuating. They are simply laying out punishments for the breaking of biblical law, which was obviously very different than the laws of today.
I understand the apprehension to the idea of a "god." You can believe whatever you'd like, but if you're claiming "logic" as your guide, or even fact, then don't try to make fallacious connections like these.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It's cute how you think you're so clever, but this was the ancient Jews, the Old Testament. As in: doesn't apply now. This was the norm back then for everyone, even non-Jews. The Egyptians would sacrifice their first-borns for the sake of battle. And the difference between murder and kill is subtle, but there is one lemmie show you:
Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of.
Murdering is killing in hate. Whereas killing is simply that: killing. The death penalty which many people are FOR is not called murder by the proponents, but is by anyone who opposes it. What you're doing is called framing the argument. I'm not exactly sure what your point is... You aren't good at that part but you can frame and argument pretty well.
But allow me to point out something I find interesting: your use of the word intrinsic. Now this word means belonging to a thing by its very nature. I.e. not taught or learned, but ingrained in. Atheists views cannot have intrinsic moral codes. That would imply that he/she was born with a moral code. But wait! Wouldn't that mean that some people could "mutate" and be born with a different moral code? So... Someone who was born with a propensity to murder, rape, and pillage... Well surely we can't blame them for following their moral code. “Remorse for what? You people have done everything in the world to me. Doesn't that give me equal right?” Charles Manson said this. He felt he had the RIGHT to kill people. He had no moral objection to this. So this is the type of person that atheism must accept or risk being hypocritical. You can't say "People are born with a moral code! You have to accept that!" and then deny Charles Manson his right to murder. So here's my frame: Without God, who gave us a reason not to murder, why not murder? Charles Manson surely did. He was not by any means a Christian. Before you go into the crusades and all that non-sense, a true Christian is defined by who they follow and obey. So a Christian who murders is not a Christian. By definition a Christian follows Christ who taught peace and love. 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 is a nice verse about that. Mark 12:31 is another.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
you spend a lot of time talking about how basically "God" is the only reason you don't kill and rape and murder......
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Wow. You just dedicated a whole paragraph to a definition that was "framed" as you so nicely put it and you failed to notice that the word "intrinsic"-not taught or learned, but ingrained in could also include instinct... as in hunting, knowing how to eat, caring for young, all of which are attributes that all animals on this planet posses without a moral code
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
You are a moron.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
There is no way to prove 100% that God exist or doesn't exist. I am not here to defend my faith based beliefs with facts. All I know is what has been revealed to me through the word of God and through my persistent faith in Jesus. If one does not attempt to seek out truth it will not be found. However anyone can take fact and hold onto it for a lifetime and insist I must be a fool. The world is flat and revolves around the sun. To me it seems foolish to KNOW there is no God and yet say all is subjective. If I am wrong, what do I lose? I will gladly be the "idiot" on this one. I don't watch fox news, in fact I generally try to seek out non-biased new. Also I embrace existentialism. Philosophy and science, to me (seeing as all is opinion and none is fact), continue to "disprove" God yet show the desperate need for humans to have purpose and to have reason, even if that reason being to disprove reason and purpose. I am glad my comment has bothered so many of you. May the grace and peace of Jesus Christ be with you.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
The thing that bothers me is the fact that you and so many people even believe what you are saying.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It's a little bit like Communism, it looks good on paper and sounds great read out loud, but in reality, it just doesn't work.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
'socialism without jails', just works.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
there's typos all over this.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
*There are typos all over this.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I'd buy this on cafepress.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Wow how original! (not) Where have I heard this before...oh, from France's most famous and iconic postmodern philosopher...
I'll give you all a hint. Starts with an "S" and ends in "arte".
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Bit of a puerile comment for a Sartre fan. Anyway, I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first one to express ideas on this, and he certainly wasn't the last.
You think you can come up with a more original philosophy? You're the one who's using the title of someone else's play for a username.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
nihilism is fun to practice, NOT
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Actually, the philosophy in question here looks to be closer to Absurdism as a nihilist would not seek to create their own meaning.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It would have to depend. After all, Nietzsche would argue that you Should make your own meaning, and he was one of the forefathers of nihilism, or he has been labeled as such anyway.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Nietzsche was terrified of Nihilism; he spoke of it being inevitable and indisputable.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It is existentialism. Pure sarte kids.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
If there is no God and gods, no morals and the universe is not moving towards any higher purpose what exactly is the basis for your "advice"? What difference does it make if someone else believes there is a purpose and acts accordingly?
What you have declared is that no one can expect YOU to act morally and for those that do believe in morality, you are an enemy whose very existence is a threat to theirs.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
You're looking at this with a view of the entire world. This advice is completely selfish, it's all about each individual in themselves; it has nothing to do with you until you take it on and even hen only your following of it would be anything to do with you.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Actually I was trying to prove the ridiculousness of attempting to "advise" someone else on what they "should" do after denying the basis for any "should".
Any advise about what a person should do assumes there is a higher purpose to one's existence than acting on immediate impulses. If a higher purpose is denied, any "should" is logically meaningless.
However, there are a lot of people babbling such illogical bullshit, some are simply not too bright and some are deliberate manipulators. I was trying to figure out which category the people here belong to.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Yea the absurdists and nihilist are gonna declare a war on morality, oh wait they do not believe in morals. But great job projecting your personal beliefs onto a otherwise cool explanation of absurdism.
Whose happiness? And why should anyone believe your recipe for happiness? What makes you think you know better how others can achieve their happiness than they do themselves?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Obviously your own happiness. You knew the answer to that man, you are just trying to be a douche with the pretense of philosophical basis. Aren't you cool?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It is not that obvious. If it is my happiness that you someone else is referring to, what makes that person so sure it comes from following his/her advice? Why couldn't the advice simply be "Do whatever makes you happy"? If that means my believing in some invisible God who created the universe some 6000 years ago and will make hand me down eternal bliss/misery based on some things that I believe in or not, so be it?
So it is OBVIOUS the basis for the advice is most certainly NOT the happiness of the person being advised.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It is suggesting that really happiness can only be found by shrugging off concepts like that. I can't begin to image how you could not tell then end goal of those practices was happiness.
Maybe it turns out that that doesn't lead to happiness. But you know what? That's its goal. Which you are somehow suggesting isn't clear? Notice how you are the only on who doesn't understand that.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
What makes you think you know better than someone else what they should practice to get what they want, be it happiness or something else. Or are you suggesting that there are some absolutes that you have discovered and the others haven't that you feel compelled to share with others?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
just reading this whole little thing bewtween rob and ganap. dude Danapati, retard.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
If I had any doubts before about the intellectual capabilities of those impressed with the text in the picture, you removed all of them. Congratulations!
You've done equally well in my books with your promotion of invisible sky gods that dictate morality for humans.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I don't remember promoting invisible sky gods dictating morality for humans. But I can understand why you have to imagine things that others haven't said.
"If there is no God and gods, no morals and the universe is not moving towards any higher purpose what exactly is the basis for your "advice"?"
You tell me, what is the implication of this statement? You essentially postulated that we require gods to have purpose or advice.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Not necessarily. A universe moving inexorably towards a higher purpose will do. Those who believe in God assume the purpose was the purpose of creation. But the universe could be evolving in a purposeful manner without anyone positing a creator of the universe.
"But the universe could be evolving in a purposeful manner without anyone positing a creator of the universe. "
Feel free to enlighten me as to what that purpose is and why you think the morals of humans have any effect on the universe, or for that matter, anything other than our tiny civilization.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I do not know what the purpose is.
Morality is what allows settled human existence and allows these societies to grow in size, but has no biological/evolutionary basis (check with Dr. Dawkins, if you don't believe me). Large settled societies are the only way knowledge gets accumulated leading to the technology we see around us today. We have certainly managed to impact significantly the tiny planet we live on in the last couple of hundred years and given that there are at least a few billion years to go before this planet is not suitable for habitation for the likes of us, not sure why you would doubt what kind of impact our successors would have on the universe.
Let me guess, if I believe in your invisible man in the sky, I'll gain all the fulfillment I've ever wanted and will live on forever and ever, and feel loved and all that, right?
Feel free to back up any of your believes with any actual proof.
Where did I mention an invisible man in the sky? Don't attempt strawman arguments.
Ab assertion has been made here and not by me. The onus is on those who make the assertions (and those that believe them) to either accept the logical conclusions of the assertion or reconsider the assertion.
Anyone who believes there are no morals is called a scoundrel/crook and is unworthy of trust. It is amazing that someone can actually declare himself/herself a crook and still expect to be believed/trusted. Are you fishing for absolute retards who are incapable of logic and will believe anything that claims to be "atheistic"?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I think that anyone can find beauty in the argument that is existentialism. Take out all the stuff about their not being a God and really they are just telling you to take advantage of the life that you have and not get so caught up in the afterlife that you don't experience what God gave you.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It makes sense if you believe in God. However, if you don't one particular way of existence has no special significance over another. Why would anyone need someone else to tell them which way they should live, since there is no absolute reference anyway?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
"Anyone who believes there are no morals is called a scoundrel/crook and is unworthy of trust."
Care to substantiate or are you just talking out of your ass? Haha.
Define your own morals you lazy ass. Quite following and start leading.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Examples of those who don't believe in morals are bandits, murderers, rapists etc. Yeah, sure, around where I live we call them scoundrels and crooks. It is possible, such are role models where you live.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
"Absolute morals," not "any morals at all." The idea that there are no morals that exist is so ludicrous that I find it hilarious that you even entertain it as a valid point to attack.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
It is not such a ludicrous idea.
Normal concept of morality is that they are discovered, not made up. All morality flows from a supposed higher purpose, a purpose higher than the individual in question. Denying such a basis is denying a basis to judge inidvidual actions. Nothing can be declared wrong. Chew on that for a while, so you may understand it.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Yes, it is a ludicrous idea that he was actually claiming that there are no morals at all. Obviously people follow morals. To entertain that as an argument is hilariously childish.
No the "normal" concept is that morals are human constructs. Only religion claims that there are absolutes. The hell do you eman bby "normal" anyway? You are just throwing out vague words now in an attempt to profound. The consensus in philosophy is that humans construct their own morals. This is based on the vast difference in morals from culture to culture. Simple really....
You judge individual actions based on your own reasoning and emotions, not on this "higher power" you speak of. Sure some people try to base it all on a god, and that is exactly what this is saying not to do. You are free of constructs like that
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Obviously most people believe in a God or gods, but that doesn't stop you from denying Him/them, right? So even if it is obvious that most people believe in morals, whether they follow them or violate them, why should that stop you from denying anything called morals actually exist.
By normal, I meant popularly understood. Yes, religious people do believe that morals are handed down by super-human entities and many of them believe their morals are universally applicable across all places and times and the morals of different sets of people differ.
Length of day and night vary from place to place and around the year. I don't see anybody denying the existence of "absolute" day and night or saying they are "human" constructs. Day and night exist and they are recognitions of a phenomenon that is not man made.
I don't partcularly care what the "consensus in philosophy" is, I am not trying to get a degree in philosophy nor do I believe the "consensus in philosophy" somehow is a commandment for me.
If you say each individual is the basis for his own morality, you are saying that no one can be morally wrong and you can be expected to feel morally right whatever you do including murder, plunder and rape exactly as I have been saying all along.
What exactly are you differing with me on, that your morality derived exclusively from yourself somehow prevents you from being a murderer, plunderer or rapist? If so, do let me know how.
You accuse me of making strawman arguments, then you go and state that people without morals are bandits, murderers and rapists? That a hypocrite.
Have you ever heard of a person without morals? There's no such things. There are simply people with *different* morals than you.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
"There are no morals" is an assertion made in the picture that we are all commenting on. If you don't agree with it, don't try to defend it.
I said bandits, murderers and rapists are examples of those without morals. But sure, if someone claimed a complete absense of any morals, as the picture asserts, I don't see any reason to trust them not to murder, plunder or rape if they had an opportunity and could get away with it.
Morality, whatever it is, is a code of conduct that is to be held above oneself. So when someone says it is morally wrong to do such and such, he/she means do not do it even if doing so benefits you or makes you happy. Morality automatically implies a purpose for one's existence that is above one's own happiness or interests. If you deny a purpose for your existence that is not of your own making, you deny a basis for any morality.
Having different moral standards is different from having none. If you are an atheist but do have moral standards, most likely you don't have a logically consistent basis for the standards. You can be an atheist without being omniscient. It doesn't hurt to admit that one doesn't really know if life and universe have a purpose, but one rejects the claims and motivations of the religious people while accepting those aspects of religious morality like speaking the truth, not stealing, not murdering etc. that form the foundations of a stable and harmonious social existence.
But if you make claims like "there are no morals, the universe is not moving inexorably towards any higher purpose", you are on a very shaky ground trying to convince anyone that you are not a potential bandit, murderer or rapist if not already one.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
You clearly misunderstand the statement "there are no morals." Literally that means no living person abides by morals. This is obviously not true so you must take it figuratively, ie. there are no absolute morals. How is this possibly difficult?
The thing doesn't claim that people have no morals. You have to do more than just read it literally man, you can't expect us to do all the work for you.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
That would have been an explanation worthy of a religious scholar referring to their texts :-)
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Yes, often people use arguments that are similar to each other.
You suggest though, that because I use a similar argument I must be either flawed or hypocritical? The naivety of that statement is profound. Take my words for their meaning, not for their similarity to other statements. My point still stands, you are using a straw man by misunderstanding the point and then attacking that, then using a fallacy to claim something about my point. Honestly man. Make some logical statements....not this rubish.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I am not suggesting your argument if flawed because it is similar to a religious argument. I am saying it is flawed AND hilariously similar to a religious argument.
If I am supposed to read an unwritten "absolute" before morals, am I also supposed to read some other adjectives before the others that have been denied to exist in the same sentence, like God or gods and the next part as well?
In any case, your concept of morality (only an self-defined reference and no external reference) is no different from having no morals. Since you are your own standard, there is nothing you may not be expected to do (or feel guilty if you do) including actions that are considered horrendous enough by those in your vicinity that they would be willing to take your life or liberty away for committing them.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I completely disagree with you Ganapati.
The picture does not assert that there are no morals.
There is no such thing as a being with no morals. There are beings with different morals than yours.
"murderers and rapists" are not examples of those without morals, they are examples of those with different morals.
Or examples of those with the same morals as you who know it is wrong to murder but have an urge to do so that is stronger than them.
There are too many shades of gray for you to generalize this
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I suggest you read the text in the picture once again. Right under the title is the text "There is no God or gods, there are no morals, the universe is not moving inexorably towards any higher purpose".
Murderer and rapists have "different" morals? I am impressed with your concept of morals.
In the concept of morality that I know, it is a set of rules that one accepts as the right, regardless of whether they benefit one or make one happy in a given instance. Under my morality a murderer, bandit or a rapist is morally wrong. If the person also accepts that he/she committed something that is morally wrong, we call it a moral failing. However if the person claims to be right, we don't call it as "having a different set of morals", simply as one without morals.
When I talk about differences is moral standards I am referring to culture specific things like respecting one's elders etc. If you believe habitual lying, cheating, murdering, raping, plundering are right under some "moral" code, I will have to assume you are either guilty of or potentially capable of any or all of them.
Some people view abortion as murder. Some people think killing stem cells is murder. Some people think killing a cow is murder. Some people think stepping on an ant is murder.
Once you get your head out of your ass, you'll realize that there is no definitive set of morals that are 'standardized' across all humans. Different people have different views. Get it in your head.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
What constitues murder is a different question from whether murder is immoral or not.
Whether we can agree on all things moral or not is different from whether you have a concept of morality or not.
Someone who does not believe abortion as murder, but murder as morally reprehensible is someone I don't have to feel any threat from. However someone who believes there is nothing wrong with murder as long as he has some profit from it is someone who threatens me by his/her existence and I will take mesures to ensure such people do not enjoy the freedoms moral human beings enjoy.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Billy Talty, whoever you are, does not know, could not know if what he believes is true. It is pure assumption and it is foolish. I would much rather be a slave to 'Jabber the hut' then to ever be subjected from the flawed and greedy ideals of the one, true, none existent GOD. If you feel uneasy in what this says, 'An hero' yourself. Do not disregard the flaws in religion trust in this new ideal of 'Making Your Name'. There is no Father no heaven; evolution has created you, everyone has flaws.. you could also call that evolution? And to whoever wrote this: Perfect, love it, need more ppl to light the new way :) eat a dick and die Billy... fucking bible bashers
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Cheeeeesyyyy
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Who ever wrote this not only has the spirit of the anti-christ but does not know, could not know if this were true. It is pure assumption and it is foolish. I would much rather be a slave to Jesus then ever be freed from the perfect and purposeful ideals of the one, true, living GOD. If you feel uneasy in what this says, seek out answers. Do not disregard the passing down of generations of knowledge for this new idea that we have no meaning but to create a name for ourselves. There is a Father in heaven who has allowed you to be created, and he has loved you despite your flaws, cause we all have them. And to whoever wrote this: if what you say is true, please, please kill yourself because you spelled "you" where you obviously meant "your" in the 8th line of text.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
I'm sorry. "Do not disregard the passing down of generations of KNOWLEDGE for this new idea ... There is a father in heaven ... yada yada ... " ? This new idea is foolish? It is assumption? Perfect ideals of God? Hang on a minute. You are implying that there is no back up to this new idea. Uh... where's the back up to the generations of 'Knowledge' that has been passed down? Where's the proof of the father in heaven? I'm not saying I disagree with religion, and I'm not saying I agree with it either. I am merely pointing out your hipocrisy (sp?).
P.S. I love you for correcting grammar. Just putting that out there.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Yuh an' if u dun like A-mer-i-ca u kin giiiiit out! Let me guess, you watch FOX news and if it were not for Jesus you would worship Sean Hannity & Ann Coulter, wait you already do. As Jim Crawford said, "Man has always required an explanation for all of those things in the world he did not understand. If an explanation was not available, he created one"... like you have. Oh mah gawd teh ante-geist is amung uz!
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
im sorry but pure assumption is assuming there was some angry being in the sky who hated us so much that he sent his son down so we could kill him and then "he" called it even. sure christianity has great lessons on morality and how to be a good human, but you really think there's a magical floating consciousness in control of everyone's fate? they don't even care if you're a good person... if you believe in Jesus they say you will go to heaven. so what is the "meaning" of following christianity? there only real answer is that there are no answers. we're alone, we have no idea why we're here, and we're stranded in the middle of an inconceivably large universe stranded on this rock. if you think you have an answer, you have a serious case of megalomania, just like all the rest of the religious nuts out there.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
why do you call God angry? he loved the world so much that he gave his son so that we could go to heaven upon believing (john 3:16). the bible makes many references to the heavenly FATHER so yes, it would be a 'he'. in my opinion the "christian life style" is much more practical than otherwise. say what you will, but if you think about it, abstaining from sins will make life much easier down the road (not just in a spiritual sense). there are answers. not all of them, but some. just because you havent found them yet does not mean they do not exist. i may be a religious nut, but i would ask that you please not generalize like that. i dont know your background. i dont know what youve been through. i do know that there is a God out there, and hes searching for you.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Obvious Troll is Obvious. BUT if you would rather be a slave, than thats your prerogative. excuse me while i go live.
The spirit of the anti-christ? What are you smoking?
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
Let me ask you this. What if a religion believes that you should make up your own morals to live by? Or what if a religion believes that there Gods are not immortal or what if a religion was proven? Then what would you do? Would you join that religion if it was proven scientifically to be truth? Now think about this if you were a god and lived in your own world where you had peers and people on earth decided to stop believing in you would you feel compelled to make them believe? would you care that they stopped? I sure as hell wouldn't You see I believe in what I believe cause I want to and I have good reasons for believing it and when you try to shove your atheist ways down my throat I get just as pissed as when a christian does it. I know my religion is true and it honestly doesn't matter what you believe or worship so I have no need or want to collect followers. As far as I am concerned the christian God is false and I don't go out of my way too make the point because I don't give a shit.
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
your just being IGNORANT
Reply
Flag
0
Anonymous
/ 13 years ago
All of you would very likely benefit from calming yourselves by going into a nice quiet room, sitting in a comfortable position and chanting, "Peace, peace, peace." It would call upon your true nature which is to move in harmony with the normal healthy functioning of the body/mind. This is accomplished primarily through the breath while concentrating upon the total body being. When this becomes the daily practice of the true philosopher, the heart is more open and the mind is free to create. Creation is the process of the entire universe. When one is aligned with this reality, clarity of ones purpose is realized. Then can go forth and establish relationships which are productive and have conversations which produce wonderful things for ones own self as well as for others. This is where morality springs from. One finds rhythm in the breath the beating of the heart, the turning of the world into night and day. Sanity and maturity is restored to the individual, and this, not quailing, childish name-calling and lording about our egos with who is right and who is wrong, is the basis for understanding. That is after all the only true reason for communication between true philosophers of life. With this in mind, we invite you all to go forth and do good things for yourselves and for one another, as well. In short we might say,without sarcasm, and in all sincerity, "Get a life." Peace!
Hey, just realised, whenever I write the word 'f-u-c-k' on here it replaces it with 'darn', which in fact would be more offensive to religious people as 'darn' is a corruption of 'd-a-m-n'
if t were that simple there would be peace. its not.. in fact the first 4 words im ready to debate.
dont follow this idea at all.. rather make up your own and respect the next persons too.. thats it, the end.
cant we all just get along.
and PS.
shut the fuck up
if there is no meaning to life, then that means you can't make a meaning to it. If there is no meaning, there is no free will, because everything can be predicted.
If life is really meaningless, give me a reason to exist
Religious but tolerant<3
To all the "believers"...the fucking sun doesn't rise. At all. The earth spins around. Where did you people go to school?? Lol. Religious fights are always funny to me.
Wow you commentors are really really "deep". Alot of bickering and whatnot. Dont think or "believe" your self to death. lol. A bunch of well spoken
people nonetheless.
Yeah this poster is f*cking meaningless and I'd like to watch it burn ;)
I like it. I wish it was a poster.
Interestig that most of you seem consumed with the argument of the authors belief/nonbeliefs rather than looking at what part of the poster may speak to you. My personal thought is that the energy spent in the posts trying to validate the individual's position are an absolute waste of time. When it comes to religion and beliefs, people hold on to them as though their very existance depends upon it and will never change. So stop the futile discussion and go out and make/live your life.
if you're gonna distress type do it by hand, downloading a bunch of typefces from dafont is pretty easy, and you showed how easy.
who cares what any of u have to say,, its all in vain,,,,, big up dude
I think this is beautiful. I feel that the write needs to be drastic to get his/her point across. Please react and listen better that way.
'Fighting meaningless is futile', - no, as you've just stated imbruing something with meaning is easy, I do it all the time. And just because it doesn't exist outside of our own human constructs doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have profound effects on the world.
Consciousness is real (it's the only thing I can be sure of! *nod* to 'I think therefore I am) ergo meaning is real.
Where do I buy a print of this
This is pretty lame honestly.
In seeing the arguments over the classification of atheism as a religion, I feel it is important to stress that most reasonable atheists adhere to a logical system of "belief" closely mirroring the scientific method. In other words, they believe in things for which they have very strong evidence. This doesn't mean they will never accept God. It merely means that they will refuse to do so until He makes Himself known into a truly verifiable way (no "my brother knows a guy whose uncle saw Jesus in a burrito" business). I myself fall into this camp, and for the most part it simply means that I do not factor deities of any sort into my life or perspectives because they're about as practical as the Easter Bunny. Doesn't mean I think it's impossible for God to be out there. But based upon the data I have now, what other conclusion can I draw? Just as scientific theories are often radically challenged and even overturned, so too does most atheism (at least in the freethinkers I have met) seek to revise itself, at least in terms of the small changes to our beliefs and moral views. Believe me, the atheism of my youth was arrogant and dogmatic. Now, I hope not so much. My point is that it seems kind of prudent for an atheist such as myself to say that I am entirely open and willing to be proven wrong. It'll just take a lot to do so. The universe is a crazy, fascinating, entirely wondrous place all by itself without God. If He turns out to be at the center of it all, my pure human mind will be crushed in that fear and awe of Him that's so often quoted because it will clearly destroy the rational system of thought I've tried my hardest to hone. Hope this puts maybe a positive spin on things?
My question is this, if the world is meaningless what is the point of even living?
You must find your own meaning and live for that reason. If you live your life according to someone else's meaning, you will feel quite empty.
This contradicts itself. What separates us from all other matter in the universe? What gives us the right to create meaning? Who has given us the paintbrush with which we paint our canvas, which must have also been provided? How are we capable of creating meaning? Only through consciousness is any of this possible. It's the ultimate superset of the universe. But you deny deities which, in turn, denies consciousness because there would be no connection through which consciousness is made. Only with some sort of entity outside of everything is any sort of creation of meaning possible.
Also, we are born with certain aspects that differ from one another. We can make our own meaning, yes, but it must match the path we are meant for. It's called diversity! Different brains are hardwired different ways. You can't work outside your means. You are born with a certain shaped cup and the water of life fills it and morphs to the shape. But the journey is what matters the most. How you get the water to fill it. There is no ultimate goal we work to reach except the picture as a whole. There is no grand finale except for when you can look back at what you have done and be proud.
Can you guys stop being ignorant and saying absolutely nothing at all. All you are saying is "atheism is a religion" "no it's not". If you want to have a discussion with a purpose, take a step back - define what religion means!! Otherwise you are having a meaningless conversation.
The idea of this poster is to open your minds to the fact that we are autonomous beings, and should act as such, not based on the whims of others.
You know, there are books called "Dictionaries" that do that...
Name an established scientific theory that (as you say) cannot be known...
I'd love to hear this.
Evolution cannot be known as you say. No one has every been able to scientifically prove macro-evolution, such as the big bang or that humans came from single-celled organisms, that's why it's a scientific theory not a scientific fact or law. I will ask, How can you then prescribe to the idea that something was created out of nothing? Or how can you believe that order was created from chaos when the second law of thermodynamics states that everything is moving from order to chaos? the odds of one protein molecule forming are 1 in 10^113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. Can you just believe that happened by chance?
You say scientific theories can be known yet the reason they are theories not laws and facts is because they cannot be known. Even Darwin said he may be wrong when he spoke of evolution. He would - if alive - agree that he was wrong seeing as macro-evolution has not been proven.
The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.[186][187] "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable,"[188] and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.[189]
This is from Wiki's List of Common Misconceptions
Yep, evolution is a theory, just like gravity.
I bet you don't believe in that one either? I suggest you check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Maybe you should re-examine what you know about the concept of a theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#List_of_notable_theories
Except he isn't. Evolution has been verified countless times, macro-evolution included. You simply choose to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend like it isn't the case.
First, none of what you just said did anything to disprove what I was saying. You showed me that Evolution has a lot of support and is a notable theory, neither of which proves that it is true.
Second, gravity can be and has been proven while evolution cannot. The issue here is not gravity, it is evolution though. You can sit here and tell me all day that it has been proven and I can sit here and tell you how it has been proven and mine will carry significantly more weight. You cannot simply argue by saying it has been proven simply by saying it has been proven. Give me evidence of its proof, not that is has support and that it is a notable theory.
Another argument that I did not previous mention in disproving evolution is irreducible complexity. The idea that there exists forms that cannot be reduced. One such example is the flagelar motor on bacteria. This motor has 23 parts to make it work. If you take any of these parts away it will not work. Evolution teaches that for a new addition to any being the addition must benefit it for it to remain and that only one thing is added at a time. if any one of those parts is added it will in no way benefit the life form and therefore will be discarded. All 23 must be present which in the theory of evolution cannot happen.
You have no interest in the truth, you just want to muddy the waters with doubt where there is none. Any/all sane minded people accept evolution as truth. You just want to attack a very justified and well reasoned theory in order to promote your own ridiculous idea (creationism, where there is zero evidence).
Really? Can you please explain to me why gravity happens? I'd be very interested in what your explanation as to WHY (not "how") it happens.
Only in math can you have proofs. Everything else is through deduction and evidence.
I bet you'd make a great lawyer. You'd tell the jury, "Suuure, the murderer was found at the scene covered in the victim's blood, holding the dagger, and was shouting "WHY DID I KILL HER?!!!"... but..! did anyone see him do it?! I THINK NOT! THEREFORE! HE'S CLEARLY INNOCENT!!"
Here's the funny thing though, evolution HAS been observed. It's been verified and reproduced time and again.
Irreducible complexity is non-sense invented by Michael Behe, a creationist pretending to be a scientist. It has no support in the scientific community, and only gets parroted by religious people with an agenda.
I had another thought sticking with your completely fallacious and off topic Lawyer analogy. From what you have given me this is the type of lawyer you would be
Giving no evidence, "He did it, I know he did!" - you
"Ah, but where is the evidence?" - me
"Oh, there is evidence." - you
"Yes, but where is it?" - me
"He did it." - you
"How do you know?" - me
"I know because he did it." - you
If you don't believe this is accurate take a look at the evidence you have shown me. None. Well, none that matters at all.
Dude. Google called.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
You have done an excellent job in giving me proof that micro-evolution exists. Which I will agree with you there, changes within a species over time to adapt to environment is true. It is provable that that does happen. However, you show me common descent. Is it not also plausible that they are some similarities between different species because of they all have the same creator in common? One of the examples your wikipedia site showed me was a fish that over time changed to a completely different fish. Is there no chance there was a lot of cross breeding there mixed with micro-evolution? You cannot say that a mule is a mutation of a donkey or a horse. It isn't it is the result of breeding the two together. Yet, the mule has a lot of similarities with both of them. You still cannot logically conclude that it evolved to that because it hasn't. Micro-evolution, yes. Macro-evolution, no.
You have yet to answer a huge foundational question of evolution and that is of the big bang. How can something be created from nothing?
As another request to this argument, I would prefer that you either provide me with evidence yourself or that you choose scholarly sources, not wikipedia. instead of going to google. go to http://scholar.google.com. Please of course.
And where, MATEY, is the crossover from ''macro'' to ''micro''? Evolution is the scientific explanation of how we have come to be. It explains. Creationism explains nothing. You can't say why creationism happened. You can say why evolution happened. Why? Because the fittest animal will survive. Evolution takes place over a huge timescale you obviously can't get to grips with so you just dismiss it and continue to uphold your dogmatic beliefs.
Oh, now you will say ''Dogmatic? You're being dogmatic about evolution.'' No. That's not what dogma is. Dogma is irrational. The observation of evolution is not.
Oh yeah, and also, a mule cannot breed, a mule is not a species, it lacks the correct chromosomes to breed :/ (You probably won't grasp that either, you'll be saying ''Chromosomes don't exist, the aliens make us!''
I must ask you this why do insist on giving me none of the evidence that you claim exists? You have done nothing but attack me. I am still waiting to here the evidence. If you can provide any I will be more than willing to listen to what you have to say. What I mean by evidence, is not that it is a well accepted theory.
How can you say I have no interest in truth? If that were the case, I would have simply stopped debating this. But I must ask that you stop attacking me and focus solely on the topic at hand being evolution.
No, I cannot explain WHY gravity happens, neither can you explain WHY evolution happens. You continue arguing that it is true because it is true. This is a logical fallacy which holds no water.
No, that is not the sort of Lawyer I would be. you say ignore the evidence, yet you fail to provide me with any. If this analogy, I do not know that the murderer was found at the scene covered in to victim's blood holding the dagger, because you have failed to provide me with an such information. Whenever you provide me that information I will look at it.
You tell me that irreducible complexity is non-sense, but you do not tell me how. For me to believe you, I must know how it is non-sense before I can believe it. Telling me that he is a creationist pretending to be a scientist is no such evidence. The fact that it gets no recognition in the scientific community also not evidence enough to prove it is non-sense.
I must repeat my earlier question and ask that you stop using logical fallacies to win this debate. Also, I ask that you answer the questions in my first post of how you explain how something can come from nothing? and the questions that follow.
Name one that can.
All established scientific theories are falsifiable. As well, they are considered tentative(by law in the US), progressive and dynamic. Therefore, they are highly mutable and cannot truly be known.
1) "by law in the US", Us law has absolutely nothing to do with science.
2) If you take the angle that nothing can be proven (which is a completely useless mode of thought), than there is never any reason to assert anything whatsoever. You might as well stop thinking at that point.
Side note: math can be proven.
Science can reasonable prove many things. Religion cannot prove anything, not even close. All it can do is make self-reinforcing, non-falsifiable claims. Which leads me to say: "What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
Yes, I do take that angle. Such is what pushes me to quest for more knowledge, more evidence. There is no proof in reality, only evidence and either belief or non-belief in said evidence. How can one dismiss evidence and assert opinion as truth?
Knowledge and evidence becomes meaningless if you think that nothing can be proven and that you cannot trust your senses.
Everything you learn will be of no value, and everything you do will be futile.
What value is evidence if you cannot trust it? How do you know evidence even exists if you can't even be sure you exist? (see how pointless it is to think that way?)
I never asserted an opinion as truth. I assert scientifically reasoned logic as truth.
How is agreement with a theory not opinion?
How is critical thinking futile and pointless?
I find it odd how you assume that lack of proof would nullify both knowledge and evidence.
These comments are funny... all the atheists demanding proof that can never exist and all the theists offering theories as evidence. The atheists rebut with beliefs born of evidence, to which I retort, "We are all free to believe the evidence we choose to agree with. Neither side of the argument can be proven."
Yeah, except there's plenty of reason to believe in science and no reason to believe religion.
Are they not both just collections of agreed upon theories?
Also; What is your basis in denying an others evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) from their choice?
No, they aren't. Religion has a hypothesis, that under any reasonable test fails. Religion postulates and asserts what it cannot possibly know.
Anecdotal evidence is just that. I really don't need to say anything more.
So, science doesn't postulate things it can never know and if it doesn't happen in a controlled, repeatable environment it's invalid.... interesting.
Coooooooool. By making your statement look visually edge-y, you feel it will be more appealing to a broader audience. Not the content of the words, but the fact that it looks neat.
This is just existentialism people. Gotta love it. Not that the universe cares.
Damn straight, all you fuckers stop arguing and go out to a party and live it up! I think I'll crack open that six pack.
You know this counts as a philosophy, right?
Great! especially the new 'verb' : rembember
http://www.verb2verbe.com/conjugation/english-verb/remember.aspx
ALL OF YOU WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD CAN TELL HIM WHY YOU DIDN'T THINK HE EXISTS WHEN YOU DIE :)
1. There is a representative number of Christians in prison, but a lower-than-representative number of atheists. One interpretation of that data is that people who determine their own moral codes are, on average, actually MORE committed to them. This is not to say that Christian morality isn't meaningful to some people, but the suggestion that "God" is the only thing keeping people from raping and pillaging is patently false.
2. There are a few rules that are almost universal to humans, spanning many religions and lack thereof. These rules include: Don't kill people (outside of very narrow parameters), cheat people, or falsely accuse people. These might be seen as manifestations of the moral hardwiring of our species. Humans, like all social mammals (including dogs), have evolved certain pro-social behaviors and aversions. Left to their own devises, people will still adhere to that hard-wiring.
3. "Moral relativism" applies only to behaviors outside of that "don't hurt people" hard-wiring. This is why different cultures have taboos that seem ridiculous out of context. (But why, Leviticus, must I avoid contact with the tribe while I am menstruating?) The morally relative aspects of culture have to do mostly with roles, sex, and the conventions of daily life. This poster is simply advocating that we regard these conventions critically.
4. No, atheism is not a religion or even quite a world-view, though it could be an aspect of either. There are many ways to be an atheist.
5. This poster is attractive, and I think we could all use the reminder, from time to time, that we are free. I quite like the line about making, rather than finding, yourself. Nicely done.
Egarim (mirage backwards? any particular reason for this?), amen to that. Although I may not have been so dramatic or well-spoken when expressing my similar beliefs, I wholeheartedly agree.
I read this poster and thought: "Wow, this poster has some interesting points, and I wonder what I can do to apply these ideas to my everyday life while still holding onto my personal beliefs."
I did not feel any reason to think: "Whoa, that poster is wrong and bad and I must preach my religion." Nor did I think: "Whoa, this poster is right and anyone who disagrees is obviously a brainwashed Christian who is too uneducated to understand anything."
Now, first off let me say I doubt anyone who read this poster actually thought any of these things I have just said, but... The comments to this poster have just been so absurd I felt some need to throw in my two cents.
Just because someone believes in God or in a god does not mean they have been brainwashed.
Likewise, just because someone does not believe in God or a god or anything at all does not mean they have the soul of the anti-Christ.
I guess I am just not jaded enough yet to make such blanket assumptions (though that may in itself be a blanket assumption). I have never been one to preach any of my own opinions seriously, although I have recently noticed that the most interesting people are those that do preach or presume their world view to and of others. So I guess what I'm saying is, it's best to have an opinion, and it's best to tell people about it, but you should not be mean when someone does not share your opinion.
Of course, that is an opinion and it is possible to disagree with that.
You are born into a religion. It doesn't mean it has to be followed. People get mad at others for not following a religion even though they have no choice what they were born into. If you were born the son of a don in the Mafia, does it mean you have to follow in their beliefs? Does crime become right because you were born into it?
Interesting fact: The book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament begins by saying life is meaningless, and this is repeated as a theme throughout the book. This is not a new concept.
Just a thought: If we need to make our own meaning in life why did the artist spend time and energy telling other people how they should live their lives?
Personal belief: It is in man's best interest to place hope in some sort of higher truth. Some sort of supreme good. It keeps people sane. It is not an average person who can live a satisfying, happy life without believing in something. In fact, I think it is extremely uncommon. Religion has its faults; people abuse its powers and distort its vision, but that does not make religion or theistic points of view evil.
No, we cannot prove there is a God, or multiple gods, or any other type of non-physical being for that matter, but we also cannot disprove it.
It seems you're all wrong. These arguments are pointless.
The atheists continue to believe that they are free from brainwashing and can live under their own accord, yet they are slaves to their own weakness as they continue to argue, debate or rather, "convert" those that follow theistic beliefs. Christians are always perceived as the ones obsessed with converting others to their religion, and here the atheists work to a similar end: converting the religious to "non-religion". You change the way you play, but it seems the game remains the same.
The theists have turned faith into a twisted game of right and wrong. Backed up by logic or not, you shame the very things you believe in. Faith is necessary in certain circumstances. I know people in my life that would not be alive today if it weren't for belief. Faith and hope can be senseless and illogical, but at the same time, it's because of these self-contained properties that make it so potent and powerful. Motivation needs constant renewal, faith and hope is simply immortal. It can overcome the harshest of times. It saves more lives than non-belief could ever hope to.
Regardless, it's this silly inability to accept other's beliefs, this pathetic little child's game that you people continue to play, with no real victory to be attained, that people will continue to go to war in the name of their beliefs. You may never accept it, but it's because of this kind of ignorance that humans will always die for nothing.
One day you will look death in the eye as you grow old and choke on your own saliva. I want you to stop and think if this was all worth it. You each think that your individual beliefs have given your life more meaning than the opposing side, but you fall to the same fate as you continue to waste your breaths. I, for one, will not be afraid when death comes, cause since my birth my existence had already been plagued by its touch... long before I came to be, people like you have roamed this earth and carried on the tradition of folly and stupidity.
Right, so not debating anything in order to avoid disagreements is better? Fuck off, what a load of apathetic bullshit.
Fuck. No. It. Isn't.
Nice, you're asserting your anecdotal evidence to back this claim? Faith is necessary because without it you'd be dead? Your weaknesses in no way validates any such those beliefs.
Psychotic episodes and delusions can be equally "powerful", I guess that makes them good and useful?
Yours might, what does this have to do with anyone else?
Bullshit, you've just made a completely baseless claim.
Right, it's far less childish to believe in whatever you want. If I want to believe that drinking some wine (and pretending it's the blood of some 2000 year old dead guy that's supposedly the son of the creator of the universe, who is actually himself, and who died and flew up in to the sky after being killed by the Romans) every Sunday will lead to my eternal (after)life.. that's not just insane, that's just factually wrong. I will not 'just accept' someone else's delusions, nor will I allow these ideas to be perpetuated unabated.
If someone tells me "2 + 2 = 5", I will absolutely correct their error in judgement.
Without religion there would be no suicide bombers, there would be no killing in the name of god. THERE WOULD BE NO SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS. I'm so sick of this fucking argument that we would still kill without religion, obviously we would, since we already do, but guess what, the number of attacks and murders would drop substantially as we wouldn't be fighting over who's invisible man in the sky is the real one.
Good job projecting your own feelings on me. I don't fear death. I don't believe in an afterlife. I know that when I die, my existence will be identical to how it was prior to my birth.
"Do not let your life and your values and you actions" TYYYYYPPOOOOOOO.
I think what people mean when they say that atheism is a religion is that you atheists are the same sort of annoying shitheads that go to church every Sunday. Fuck me, you people are a great bunch of cunts.
Shut your fucking mouth you whiny bitch.
Moral behavior is relative to external circumstances. It's called Subjective Moral Relativism, in opposition to Objective Moral Absolutism. There is no good and evil, only good decisions and bad decisions. If I kill somebody while trying to defend my life, I'm not a morally evil person. I'm a person who made a bad choice based on an external situation I had no personal control over. Life is gray, our perceptions change based on social structure. Evil does not, cannot and never will exist, nor will your idea of good. Morality changes based on the evolution of society. That my friends is called Social Evolution, it exists, it is a science. All things evolve, biological, technological, and sociological. Whether you like it or not. Look at the theory of networks, and how they evolve to meet the demands of the system. Morality is no different.
I would just like to say that I especially enjoy your font choices for this little rant...
philosophical debate aside, this really isn't a great example of typography. too many different and annoying clashing fonts.
What a load of junk. Read some Chesterton.
I love this and for those who question it should become more secure about their beliefs and move on.
Can people do that? Most cant, their ego screams at them NOT TO!
I love this only because it's genius and though I do not agree with all of it,
I accept the people who do for I am secure with MYSELF. :)
This is a very strong opinion considering how many people follow a religion. Belief in something has helped people cope with their lives and hope when they think there is no hope left. There is no definite answer. Just as there is no proof that there is a God, there is no proof that there isn't one, or one of many. It's like your imposing your belief as the ultimate truth of the world, when truth is merely in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes believing in nothing helps you live your life more, sometimes believing in something does the same. It's different for each person. This is a very cool poster though and definitely speaks volumes about the artist's creativity. :)
Looks like Dafont threw up all over a GoMedia page.
this is why everyone hates atheists
Go read some Rene Descartes. Understand that empiricism is proven from circular reasoning. It is irrational to believe that the universe is explainable through empirical observation. In fact, a lot of science today is based off of unobservable phenomena to the human senses. Reality is an illusion so you should go out and make of it what you will, but do not belittle it with the arrogant idea that we humans have figured it all out by just tossing aside any idea that we might disagree with when it comes to things that we just cannot know for sure. You should also take a look at Robert Anton Wilson's "Maybe Logic". He is a very intelligent man and talks about everything from religion to quantum physics. I will agree with you though, Atheism is not a religion just the same as Buddhism is not a religion.
neoform your the best!
As a student and academic philosopher, I have to say I'm a tad disappointed in this kind of thinking. The main message is good -- live deliberately, you are free -- but this notion that meaning is entirely man-made and therefore nothing has meaning is a grave philosophic mistake.
morals and values are man made, they are made by you. no way of getting out of it. you see someone get stabbed in front of you A) you help victim, MAKING a moral stance that this should not happen cause it's wrong B) you help bad guy, MAKING a moral stance that this is not only a good thing but should be done because it's right C) you do nothing...i guess you've got issues, or are unable to actually do anything about it.
stop arguing about religion and beliefs. this poster should be saying "believe in whatever the hell you want." if thinking that someone else is watching after you, making sure life goes well for you...awesome, why not? if believing that you make your own choices and shape your own destiny....even better in my opinion.
only crappy thing (someone already stated) is enforcing a belief on someone or having a "i'm right you suck" argument.
listen to people, be aware, try to actually enjoy other human beings, throw out new ideas to people but don't tell someone the answer unless the day comes when you can prove, undeniably, that it is right and prove how everything else is wrong. until that day, start arguing about why there's more people yelling at each other than people supporting each other
God is the singularity from which the Big Bang erupted, that from which the universe was born, and thus, everything the universe now holds.
Is that the same god that loves you and will give you eternal life (only after you die, of course)?
Yeah, that god doesn't exist and is clearly the fabrication of humans that fear death and loneliness.
you suck at spelling.
None of this is about intellect or higher education. What are you trying to prove? Your awaiting someone's evidence that there is a god? What the fuck does that mean? I have no personal preference to any religion. I'm just happy to walk outside and breath fresh air. I'm amazed when the seasons change. I'm in awe of the world around us. Sure I have questions, but they will remain unanswered until I die. So give it up. Believing in God literally saves people's lives. Stop trying to take that away from them.
No it doesn't..
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/31/no_benefit_of_prayer_found_after_surgery/
on the other hand, it sure does result in a whole lot of killing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
I could go on and on.
So here's a question: what does religion give you that you wouldn't have without religion?
neoform... you're accusing 'religion' for all those events and while that might be accurate it is only because of the corrupt men who instigated them, HOWEVER, they were only acting under the guise of 'religion'. While they were horrible events preformed in the name of religion most religions DO NOT preach violence (rather the exact opposite.) Christianity has got it the worst and one of it's biggest obstacles is its reputation. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. all were horrible events instigated by 'Christians' but at the same time not at all Christianity's or God's fault; rather they were the wills of corrupt men. Man is to blame and not God. Christians, in my opinion, should not be out trying to convert people these days but apologizing for the horrible things done in the Lord's name.
Isn't it amazing how you can always attribute the actions to 'the few', meanwhile ignoring what actually drove them to do it. When you teach someone that an invisible man in the sky loves you, and will give you eternal life if you spread the word of his existence (amazing how an omnipotent being would need you to do that for him)... then you accuse him of being corrupt when he goes on a killing spree trying to convert everyone, and kill those that don't accept their new 'beliefs'...
Religion teaches us to believe the random thoughts in our heads are voices from the 'creator'. Religion teaches us to act in unquestioning and uncritical ways. Religion is poison.
When typography is involved, proper spelling is a must.
I concur, in saying that other religious statements are false, you have also claimed yours to be true. If what you say is true then we are not free at all, rather bound by the "reality" that you have given the illusion of freedom to.
If this is indeed a world free from morals, purpose, and and ultimate goal, then we are free from nothing, but joy and meaning in life.
Disregarding the attempts at intellectual postulation in the comments section..This poster is great- inspiring complete liberation from chains which bound many. I think Sartre would smile.
You people and your bickering are giving Atheists a bad name; because of you and people like you, "Atheist" has become synonymous with "Dick".
Thanks, guys.
Take a Dale Carnegie course. There is no point in arguing with religious zealots whatsoever.
A man has a penis and a woman has a vagina!
A man has a penis and a woman has a vagina!
It must be nice living in a world where things are the case just because you want them to be so. I bet if you wish hard enough you'll live forever. hahahahahahahahahaha
Why did this get labeled as "Philosophy"? This is more like "the Complete Ignorance of Philosophy".
Nah, that's the title you give to religion.
I completely agree with you. Religion is a horrible man made institution. However, there is a difference between religion and faith. Go think about that for a while.
Funny. I really can't put my finger on it, but are you people chasing the truth or imposing the meaning to be the one who's Right about this?
This picture kind of bothers me. Emotions are not man-made; they're a byproduct of our long-term development as a species. What dictates purpose is essentially what spurs your emotions, and what spurs your emotions is dictated by what helps you survive and live prosperously. This in turn implies that morality could be worked out by what makes the human species survive the most efficiently and live the most prosperously, all from a naturalistic, secular basis.
Sure, there isn't such thing as a purpose or some predefined "order of things" for the greater universe, but mankind itself is pretty deeply pre-defined by our evolution. We aren't all that varied by what makes us tick, so to imply such individualism (as in this picture) seems like an illusion in and of itself.
Existentialism, indeed. The philosophy espoused here is so superficially sweet that it is difficult to dispute. Freedom, and making meaning for yourself, how beautiful. And yet, the discerning eye sees the fallacy.
Of all the Watchmen, the two that are the most similar are the Comedian and Rorschach. A hedonistic sociopath and a moralistic crusader. And the reason is that they both used the philosophy espoused here to come to their worldviews. The Comedian saw through the charade, the fakeness, the masquerade and realized that morality, ethics, this whole world was a joke. One big, cosmic joke. And so he took on his moniker, even though he told no jokes himself. Rorschach saw through the facade, and realized that this world had no morality, except what we decide to impose upon it. And without us, there is no morality. And so he literally was the Angel of Judgment and Death. He had to be the judge, jury and executioner, because he realized there would be none without him.
And as cool as Rorshach and the Comedian are, they are some messed up people. Enjoy your existentialism. If you actually believed it, you'd be messed up too.
Jesus you're all dumb fucks except Ganapati. No offence, but seriously, stop with the pseudo-intellectual talk, no-one on this page knows what they're talking about, you're just expressing opinions under the guise of fact.
What's with this New Age BS? This is the sort of ignorant teenagers' "rebellious" thinking. If every people think like this then civilization will collapse. Nobody's completely free. We're all dependent lots of other people and other things. In order for you to life a huge complicated system, in which you're a part of, has to work. I'm not saying that the current system is perfect or right but at least you are here reading this sentence in (I hope) comfort and safety because of the system. By all means question the system, change the system, repair the system, but always remember that there are other people that will be affected by your decisions.
This isn't New Age. It's post-modern. Large difference.
I agree a little with the Anonymous Dude. And by the way, people are FREE already. Everyone is free to choose what they want to do and what religion to follow. Yeah I know, religion has been used for centuries has an excuse to create wars. But the people who use religion for war are not religious. Because almost all religions have a message of love and understanding, its the people that distort those messages. Therefore its men who is rotten, men who are FREE, and choose to decide they are better than others, men who are FREE but take away your freedom. Let me tell you something, I believe in God, not a specific one, just God. I don't have proof of his existence but I choose to believe. That is me, and my choice.
So yes its good to be free, unless you are an ass hole.
"Remember that to fight meaningless is futile, but fight anyway, inspite of and because of its futility."
That's pretty counterproductive. If you just accept that it's meaningless, then you don't have to fight at all. Yeeaahh.
Also, to go with the whole pedophile example, that's completely man-made. Just remember, several hundred years ago it was common for older men to marry young girls, even as young as 14 or 15, and it was not considered unusual. Is that "immoral"? Who prescribes morality? Man. Who wrote the bible? (Let's see if you can go 2 for 2)
Actually, if you had done any amount of research, you'd know that Christians believe we were only the tools implemented to write the Bible. (And don't get yourself all worked up about the term "tool," because that is simply to imply we used our own hands to physically write it.) The actual content was/is inspired by God himself. (New Testament at least... Old Testament is merely a record of events.) However, I completely agree with the pedophilia example... in a post-modernistic world there are essentially no morals.
What post-modernistic puppets you all are... Have a great day! =)
ITT we all recreate a 2000-year-old argument and get nowhere.
Huh... well then, forgive me for thinking your philosophy is absurdest for following a clever physicist who said
"There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle." ~ Albert Einstein
Nothing personal - just the fact that one quote is particularly pessimistic and comes from a seemingly obscure source on the internet that I stumbledupon and the other comes from a successful physicist who is widely known.
You also say:
"Deal with it. One day, you will die. You will not live forever. Everything you do will eventually be undone."
Which to me seems like a detrimental argument - you see Ganapati HAS dealt with it by coming to terms of living a fulfilling life that he enjoys through religion - whereas you are merely stating your opinion again like a broken record. It seems to me that YOU are the one who has to come to terms with how to live your own life. Generally it is frowned upon on society to give into whatever dark disturbing lust you have whether it be pedophilia, murder, or torturing someone else and society sets laws in place to discourage that.
If the universe has no importance then neither does our system as humans. Saying that a game of poker is stupid because the rules are largely based on luck is silly because some people find joy in that game. Saying that life is pointless is silly because there are many people who do *not* find it pointless.
You've probably grown quite defense by this point so I guess I'll just openly say that you seem to be an exemplary definition of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and it might be wise for you to realize that your not "one notch above the rest" per se just because you have decided to point fingers and claim that your religion of "non-religion" is the best...
FYI You said that not collecting stamps is NOT a hobby, but if your syllogism of a (cannot equal) b therefore b (cannot equal) c when c = a
Then your formula states that: NOT having a child is NOT parenting
Which is clearly false as the decision of abortion is a big one in parenting considering it decides jut how long they are going to have to parent that fetus/person.
Oh and the link for the Dunnning-Krueger Effect before I forget:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Thus really made me excited because its what I try to explain to myself all the time. :)
This should just be called Existentialism.
Well said, I like the idea font size as well.
I hope you realize that, in refuting all the other major dogmas, you've created a dogma yourself and are telling people to follow it. Just saying.
jeese. cant ANYONE just take this for face value and just move on?? noone cares about anyone else's opinion apperently, especially the stubborn, so just add this to your beliefs or dont, then shut up and move on.
Have to disagree with you there Anonymous Dude. Dogmas involve rules that apply to all individuals regardless of their persona or situation. To ask people to follow their 'authentic' selves, as it were, is exactly what he claims: Anti-dogmatic. Just saying ;)
The rejection of belief is not a belief in itself. What your putting forward is akin to saying that not smoking is a habit, or not collecting coins is a hobby.
Lack of belief in God or anything else is a belief because you believe it's fake. You can't stop believing like you can smoking because belief is an idea and a very different concept than smoking or collecting something. You smoke or you don't but just because you don't smoke, it does not mean you believe it's wrong. To not have a belief is to not have an opinion on a subject at all. If you say something does not exist then you hold the belief that it does not exist there for believing. Also believing is not a choice if you are sane and you see the sun rise then you must believe the sun rises. However there are certain things you can choose to believe in, mostly things you can't see happening or verify them yourself. Atheism means no belief in a deity or deities and if you go by the very stupid notion that religion equates to belief then atheism would be considered a religion just as Buddhism or satanism believe in no higher power but are in fact religions.
Not smoking is a choice just as smoking is a choice.
There for not believing in anything is just as much of a choice as believing is.
What does choice have to do with religion?
ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION, get it in your fucking head.
Not playing hockey is not a sport. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Nothingness is not something. Null is not a number.
Fuck, why is this so hard for you dimwits to understand?
everything is nothing, it is all an illusion that we try give meaning to. what im trying to say is that ur nothing means something to me and vica versa....... anyhow peace be with and take a chill pill
atheism isn't a religion, but it is a belief. you believe there is no god and choose to live as such. anger brings you nowhere, in fact, it probably humorous to the people you are trying to "convince"
my friend. atheism is just what is says. not theism. it is not a belief system. disbelief of religion is not a belief in and of itself.
No, Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The lack of belief in a god could be qualified as agnosticism or atheism, but both are defined and very different. As such, you either need to accept that theism MAY be true and you just don't know, or assert that it is NOT true, which requires some evidence on your part. You aren't just given a free pass on this because.
WOW seems like someone needs to jump on the happy train.
Nice to see you are able to make yourself superior to both sides.
Lack of belief is not a belief. At best, what is written on this art poster is like a sort of guess and shoulder shrug. After weighing the facts available, the author/creator has simply deduced a working philosophy; one that is far more logical and meaningful in the end than a theistic stance.
Is it nihilism? Not exactly. Nihilism is the belief that everything comes from nothing, is pointless and ultimately is destroyed. Has he said life is pointless? No, he said it means whatever you want it to mean.
And, by contrast, is eternalism any better? What is the point of living forever? Simply existing in perpetuity isn't any more meaningful than being mortal. Similarly, a theistic belief isn't any more meaningful since all meaning is arbitrary and subjective. In the end, they are equal, whether the meaning is ascribed by YOU or by "God." Meaning is ascribed by someone and someone exists for a period of time, imbuing his various actions with meaning of his choosing and whose choices affect those around him. They are equally meaningful or meaningless.
Atheism is, however, the more logical choice for the very obvious reasons that there are in reality no inherently existing things. An inherently existing thing could have no beginning, no end and no possibility of change. Yet, everything in the universe begins, changes and ends, existing only as very temporary phenomena in dependence upon other temporary phenomena. This flux appears to have existed eternally and, logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise. Therefore, God is a truly nonsensical concept in the most straightforward sense. But, then, we all knew that from the very simple question "if all things supposedly need a creator, who created the creator?"
Your argument states that changes/states of flux are eternal. Thus through your argument, change is in fact an inherently existing thing since everything is and apparently has been changing with no apparent beginning and no apparent end in sight. Even the big bang is a continuous cycle with not apparent end or beginning, and because of that cycle the big bang's continuous and eternal state of change ensures that flux/change never will change.
mind fuck?!? thanks for the string of thought buddy
This is a truly wonderful observation.
Negative. Not believing in religion is not a religion. FYI, 'not collecting stamps' is not a hobby.
his/her point is not that of religion, the point was that we don't need to follow guidelines set by others and conform to society, we can make up our own morals. Atheism is a religion, its just not a main stream one
It definitely is not a religion.
This poster is trying to tell other people how to live their lives. sounds like religion to me
You clearly have no idea what a religion is then.
religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
--American New Oxford Dictionary
...atheism is def not a religion
No you are wrong neoform, because your are creating your own religion by not believing, as much as you do not wish to believe it you are an atheist. Which is a religion, not a very knowledgeable one but is still a religion.
Read my other post that explains my point. "Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency,[1] or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.[2] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature."
That is the definition of religion it does not mean you must believe in something supernatural it just means you have to have beliefs about life in general through that definition atheism is a religion which isn't a bad thing you just hate the word and you know it.
Actually Ryan, If you look at the facts, Atheism is the more knowledgeable one as we have more "factual" evidence of our beliefs (or non-beliefs). If you choose to believe that there is an invisible man in the sky that can listen to all we say and do at all times it is called religion. If you choose not to... it is atheism, plain and simple. Then again, I guess it would all depend on the your definition of the word "religion". Why don't you look it up for yourself.
has anyone noticed that the ones arguing for atheism, seem to harbor a lot of animosity towards anyone that does not share their own beliefs, while the "others" seem to be quite pleasant and non-darrogatory , i found this humorous
But atheists, historically, have never taken that animosity further by organising a crusade, or placing a jihad upon a person or group. Traditionally the concept of "believe what I tell you, or I'll hurt you" has been the practise for most religions. And even cases in recent history as well as today, this is demonstrated. (Belgrade, Bahgdad, Bombay, Beirut, Belfast and Bethlehem to name a few...)
There's a reason 'the burden of proof arguement' is a favourate one amongst atheists, because acknowledging 'fact' through 'proof' and 'evidence' has been pretty successful in bringing us useful medicine, and astounding sciencfic knowledge, as well as being one of the best trains of thought to have been conceptualised in the history of man.
Hey, has anyone noticed all those places begin with 'b', and 'b' is the first letter of 'bumble-bee'??? This is a totally irrelevant, fallacious argument, feel free to ignore.
Communism is responsible for quite a few dead and is based on athism as much as the evils done by Christians is based on what Jesus taught.
People do not kill in the name of no god, they kill people because they're politically problematic.
Religious murders are often done because people think their man in the sky wants them dead.
Try having religion rammed down your throat your whole life.
just say "no thank you I am full" the politely excuse yourself from the table to do other things. Maybe stumble upon?
Nope, you're wrong.
I'm an atheist alright, but atheism isn't a religion. Notice how you didn't capitalize the word "atheist"? Think about that for a second.
Also note that 'religion' is defined as a belief in a super natural being or beings. Atheists do not believe in ghosts, gods or goblins or any other fairy tales, and we do not ascribe to any religion.
Like I said, atheism is as much of a religion as 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby.
I would agree with you that atheism isn't a religion, but it is a worldview. The funny thing is, the theist has more logic/reason than you do to support their worldview! I doubt you have any sort of reason to think God does not exist. But what does it matter? You are already dead. Any effort you put in this world, you are just wasting time till the inevitable heat-death and cosmic expansion of the universe. You do not even know the inevitable consequences your worldview MUST imply.
Logic?! Reason?!?! Are you serious!? I think you should read the bible again. If you look at it from a logical standpoint and a higher intelligence quotient than 65 you would be able to see that it resembles fairy tales quite strikingly.
Ha, atheism isnt a world view, it is simply not believing in a god. that is all it is. and how can you say theists have more logic than atheists? the whole point of religion is that there is a certain amount of belief involved. and belief is not logical.
World-view: A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.
Don't be an idiot and deny that being an atheist isn't a world-view. And while you are correct that being an atheist is simply not believing in a god everyone adds a twist to it "God is fake evolution is true!" or "Evolution and god don't exist life is nothing" so on and so forth. Belief is logical. I believe the sun rises every day. I believe that if I put my hand on a hot stove it will hurt. Belief is part of life kiddo. Get used to it, oh and start using your goddamn brain.
those were legitimately the most faulty analogies ever. nice try
No you don't, you know the sun rises every day, you know the stove is hot.
How do you know these things? You can scientifically conclude this through experimentation and logical deduction.
Too many people confuse what they know with what they believe. Then they take the word "faith" and make it synonymous with "belief", and make it seem like it's normal and logical to believe in something that cannot in any way, shape or form, prove the existence of a supernatural being.
If you believe in god(s), feel free to point out why YOUR god is the right one, and how every other god(s) out there is wrong.
I await your evidence.
Your argument takes place in a universe of constants, but that does not exist. No ones actually knows anything, they just believe in what they think they know. This belief in said "knowledge" comes from the accuracy and probability of said event occurring. If something occurs 9.99999... times out of 10, people make the generalization that it is a constant. That is Not the case. Said event just has a very high probability of occurring.
No one actually knows the sun will rise tomorrow, but the probability of it happening is very high. No one actually knows that touching a stove will burn them, not all stoves in the world are hot. Some of them are turned off.
Atheism is a belief, because of the variables of chance and probability. You do not actually know that there is no god. I do not actually know there is. Neither of us can actually prove either of our theories which we believe/put faith in.
Your are right about faith being a synonym to belief, but I am not sure why that is relevant to the actual logic of your argument.
*if we wanna get really picky about the world choice and syntax i use, we can interchange the term belief with world-view. I use the term belief generally and freely since i believe in thing and not world-view things.
Plus guys do not get mad about all this god, no god stuff. Ill go ahead and spoil all the mystery for you. God is Dr. Manhattan from the watchmen. See? now life is a who lot simpler. oh wait...no its not.
An original thought here please, not something you've read in a book!
Well damn it Neo iffen god dont exist whard all this cool stuff come from (:
well considering its all man-made, and all conscientious thought is built upon with every new idea, i'd deftly have to say that it came from one hell of a time
Believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so
Admittedly terms always kill an argument, unfortunately for you, you're wrong in this term.
I have confidence in the existence of the sun. So yeah, I believe in the reliability of the rising sun.
And while we are on the subject:
Faith-confidence or trust in a person or thing
Belief-confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
Look it up.
My evidence won't convince you because 1. it's too complicated to explain, and 2. you would say I'm wrong even though I'm right.
-facepalm- arguing with people is so pointless. I'm never going to change my mind and you will never change yours. Can we agree to disagree?
It is too complicated to explain? Or too silly for someone with a higher intellect and maybe a little education to "believe"
While I agree that atheism isn't a religion, it does require faith. It's a philosophical idea that you can't disprove something by saying, "I've never seen it." In order to 100% disprove the existence of any god, you would have to have complete, all encompassing knowledge of everything created. This would make you omnipotent, and therefor, the equivalent of a god. Atheism ultimately boils down to the following of reason until you're forced to make a leap of faith. Anyone who says "There might be a god, but I'm waiting for evidence." is agnostic, and lives in a constant state of doubt. There is no faith in that. That is lukewarm. To make a stand, one way or another, is to have faith, whether it is in the affirmative or the negative.
@neoform. I agree with every single comment you have made, and am very impressed by the energy you've put into debating with these people. It's sad how obvious religious brainwashing is to those who are not under it's spell. Atheism is not a religion - it's simply the lack of belief in any gods. All morality is man-made. It simply evolves over time. Thats why things that are not acceptable today, were commonplace hundreds of years ago. The truth is still the truth, even when no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even when everyone believes it.
Beautifully said Derrick. And yes, the brainwash is unfortunate and only changeable by another brainwash of equal integrity in most cases... then whats the point? I think the ideal goal in my opinion would be for people to let go of all ego and learn to think for themselves. I'm seeing it slowly manifest itself more and more in my puny 30 years of life so it looks hopeful for the future.
I think Kyle and Derrick just fell in love! aww, gayness..the ultimate slap in the face of average joe!
We were put here on this Earth for one purpose and one purpose only, to serve the Lord Jesus Christ!!!!
I don't serve invisible men in the sky.
Bickering is a waste of time. Who cares what anyone else believes? What's important is that you believe whatever it is you believe, and that you are at home in it. Forcing one's opinion on others, either for or against deity, is a base human behavior. I mean seriously. We can be better than that. Maybe if we didn't occupy ourselves so much with telling other people what they should and should not believe, we could take the time to get closer to God or ourselves or whatever it is that floats your boat. Then, maybe, we can move forward together.
Ah, post modernism is a joke! Your philosophical thought is a false. Your basis of thought is that all ideas are relevant. How is that possible? That would mean your thought process is possible and then that makes an infinite number of ideas possible.
No, his "basis of thought" is that someone else's belief shouldn't be important to you, your belief should be the only belief that is important to you.
He says that basically, don't shove your beliefs down others' throats.
This is Camus, bastards!
Yeah I noticed that too.
Finally, I can live my dream of being a pedophile and sex offender and there is nothing anyone can do about it! I mean, there are no morals, right? In the absence of God, all things are permitable. All meaning is man-made, therefore any meaning I create for myself is just as equal as anyone elses. There is no "good" or "better" meaning, to each his own. Wow, this is great : )
Where do you come up with the idea that without god all things are permissible? You are still subject to your environment. That includes the father of the children you decide to sexually abuse. This common misunderstanding often coming from people with no foresight as to the consequences of there actions. If you are being "good" because you are afraid that a celestial being will throw you into a pit of fire if you're not then you are not, in fact, a good person by any standard.
Morality *is* man made because society ("man") creates the rules and standards that we should all live by. We all need to ensure survival by getting along with our fellow man in society. Face it, we need other people to survive. The survival instinct in us all has developed a higher morality (do unto others...) in order to keep us from being alienated. Some people do not have this innate sense of what is right and wrong. I am an atheist, I do not believe in god but I believe in treating my fellow man with respect and not killing and raping. It is offensive, to say the least, that you imply that simply because I do not have a god, I will be a horrible person. In fact, I have higher moral standards than 99% of the God-fearers I know because I know that people cannot forgive as easily as your alleged God. You believe God has your back, and I believe that my friends and family have my back. Please look into your own soul, or lack thereof, before you lump the godless with the insane.
To say that your moral standards are above all "God-fearers" is complete ignorance. You make accusations on a religion that you do not understand. The Bible is pure stupidity for those who do not believe it. For you to make wild accusations about our moral standards is pure ignorance
Society is not the same as an individual. Morality among the members benefits the society, but not necessarily all the individuals especially the stronger ones. In fact, the major beneciaries of morality and empathy are the weaker individuals. That seems to be a counter-evolutionary trend. However, morality, at least in-group morality, makes for stronger societies. So the source of morality cannot be individuals motivated by biological/evolutionary self-interest. There has to be a higher purpose, even something as low as the society that the individual is part of, but necessarily something higher than the individual himself/herself.
If you deny a higher purpose to your existence, as the picture here does, you are necessarily suspect about your morality. Reward and punishment (in the here of hereafter) etc are necessary only to force those that do not feel this higher purpose to act morally. But if you deny such a higher purpose AND have no fears you are justifiably a threat to the social order.
"There has to be a higher purpose"
You say that only because you feel there needs to be one, not because there actually is a purpose, but instead because if there wasn't you'll feel everything you do is for nothing, which in the very long run, it essentially is.
Deal with it.
One day, you will die. You will not live forever. Everything you do will eventually be undone.
No, I don't feel there needs to be one, I know there is one even if I don't know what it is. For morality to exist a higher purpose is a LOGICAL necessity. It is with reference to the higher purpose is how we can judge right or wrong of individual actions. So anyone who feels a strong urge to live morally feels this purpose, even if he/she doesn't know it. You may yourself not feel it, but I suspect most living creatures other than humans don't feel it either, so I am not surprised some humans don't.
The individual cells in my body die much sooner than I do. But they have a purpose while they live, to keep me alive. Their work isn't undone as soon as they die and my work doesn't get undone when I die. I don't have a problem in dealing with my mortality.
I find it hilarious that people like you who believe your life has no essential purpose, trying to convince others their doesn't either. Why are you so desperate to convince others that their lives are meaningless? By your own claims people can invent any meaning for their lives as they please. So what exactly is your problem if they invent a meaning that attributes a meaning to the universe itself? Or is that unable to discover the meaning yourself, you are trying to convince yourself that no one else has either?
I love it when that happens, you have no logical reason whatsoever to believe something is the case.. YOU JUST DO.
Is it like a premonition, or intuition..? Does your gut tell you?
I wish I had the power to JUST KNOW THINGS like that. Maybe I could prove the poincare conjecture that way..
To suggest that you have morality by your own means it is false, because your a making it by your means making it only based upon your judgement. Your morality you make up is either in your head or made by the world, or by God. If it is made by either of the first two it is meaningless. because you have no end result.
You either don't feel an internal urge to act morally or you are simply incapable of understanding logic.
An urge to act morally cannot be explained in terms of anything drawn from evolutionary biology, much like evolutionary biology itself cannot be derived from laws of physics.
If a being acts in a way that doesn't benefit its genes and is internally compelled to do so, there logically has to be some other purpose it is trying to fulfil a purpose not of its own making.
Even if you personally felt moral compulsions, you would recognise others do. So if you were scientific minded, you would accept the evidence. However, you are desperate to erase the evidence or try to deny it exists.
Nice assertion, lemme do the same thing you just did:
Either you're ugly, or an idiot.
See what I did there? I postulated two options, and asserted them as being the only two options.
Let me try some logic on you. If you still don't get it, I will probably try to explain the Theory of Relativity to a few chimpanzees. I may have a better chance in that attempt.
Some human beings act morally i.e., in a way that benefits others but at no personal benefit to their genes. This many do voluntarily and not out of any fear of punishment or lure of reward. So there must exist a purpose higher than the individuals in question from which they derive their morality.
Now, if you can find anything factually or logically wrong with what has been stated in the above paragraph, I am willing to spend another second here. Otherwise chimpanzees may prove better capable of logical comprehension. I am not exactly on a mission to convince the entire illogical retarded bunch in the world.
Why are you saying humans?
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn233/snowbear99/Tiger-Pig.jpg
here's a tiger that lost her baby, so now she has surrogate children (pigs).
Not to mention, raising someone elses child has its evolutionary backing: legacy.
If legacy drives you, then fine, but that's YOUR choice, not THE choice. Everyone is different.
Neoform, I don't think you've said anything with substance throughout these entire conversations. All I see here is a lot of rhetoric and colorful phraseology.
Ganapati, you won't get through to anyone that just doesn't understand the laws of logic.
Initially I pegged you as an idiot. But I now know you are a clever manipulator. Rather than accept that you are spouting absurdities, you want to keep side-stepping the issues raised. Since you can't find anything factually or logically wrong with what I stated, you want to side-step it by introducing things which actually reinforce what I said, but pretend they somehow are counter examples.
Raising someone else's child is not the only instance of moral behaviour. And voluntarily raising someone else's child has no evolutionary backing. The instances like cuckoo children being hatched and raised are explained as evolutionary deceptive strategies that cuckoos have mastered that the others fall prey to.
The instances like what you quoted are things that cannot be explained by evolutionary impulses except probably to say that the child generates the same odours that fool the foster mother into believing it is its own. Looked at another way, the higher purpose is felt not just by some human beings, but also by some animals.
However, you can't explain why someone would voluntarily not take something that belongs to someone else without the owner's permission.
I never said consciously following the higher purpose was not a choice. It is a choice, some do choose to live like crooks, murdering and plundering others. They are even desperate to reduce others to their disgusting level of existence by denying such a higher purpose exists. But in a funny way, when you succeed in popularising your view you would served the very higher purpose whose existence you deny. Western societies that have exercised morality at an individual level and a disgusting display of immorality at the level of societies will eventually collapse and allow morality at both the level of individuals and societies to be re-established in the world.
So, I whole-heartedly support your deception! Good luck!
humans have this strange ability to EMPATHIZE with one another and other creatures, most of the time what stops people from raping, murdering and pillaging is the knowledge that they would not like it done to them or that they would not like it one to someone they know. This empathy is enabled by an imagination, because you can imagine what it would be like for you if, heaven forbid, a godless atheist should rape you. You know that it wouldn't be very pleasant and as a result refrain from doing so to others. Humans are social creatures, and rely on one another for survival. So for any chance of a successful society humans need to be able to live cohesively, and so those humans that could live amicably with one another, those with empathy, were naturally selected to survive.
In the last sentence in the previous comment there is a 'no' missing between 'felt' and 'moral'.
If the only reason you do good things and avoid doing bad this, is because you fear reprimand from your god, that is very sad indeed.
Careful there! A pedophile's own morality wouldn't categorise his/her actions as bad. He/She has a different morality. Exactly by what 'standards' would you categorise such actions as bad?
Following God's law in Christianity is not a chore. Christians know that the law has no power over them. To know the Triune God, is to know true peace.
Disturbing thought. You feel an invisible man in the sky has control over you...
how sad.
I want to ask this to probe your mind a little. I implore you to be a little open-minded with this question. Suppose you are wrong? What if there is a God? What are the consequences of your not believing? Now, what if I'm wrong? What are the consequences if there is no God and my beliefs are false? If you are wrong you spend eternity in hell. If I'm wrong I simply die and decay. Doesn't it seem more worthwhile to believe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
If you believe in god solely because you figure it's better to believe than not to... then you really don't believe. In which case, IF (and that's a huge if) god exists, don't you think he'd see through your game?
You misunderstand the argument I'm making. I'm not saying to believe just to believe. By my question, does it not make more since to believe that God is the God of the universe and that he sent his son Jesus because he loved you and wanted to spend eternity. Does it not make more sense to generally believe that? Also, you have once again conveniently ignored the question I asked. I want your answer to the question. Not somebody else's answer through wikipedia, I want your genuine answer to the question.
a side note question, what is the difference between believing and pretending to believe? because you are pretending to believe your actions will still reflect your pretend belief, in essence your pretend belief is not different than believe.
you get off by being condescending?, its really quite pathetic
Disturbing though. You feel life is pointless and people can murder pillage and rape to their hearts content...
how sad.
Yeah, that EXACTLY what I said.
Where do you people come from? Do you wander the streets yelling at stop signs for being too red?
This image very clearly states that you need to make your own meaning and fill your life with happiness and not expect it to come from nowhere.
AT NO POINT DOES ANYONE SAY IT'S OK TO RAPE, MURDER AND PILLAGE, YOU FUCKING TWIT.
to help out mister Average idiot. Just as you are not saying that life is pointless and people can murder pillage and rape to their hearts content, neither is he saying that we feel we are controlled by an invisible man.
-shrugs- saying morals are man-made gives anyone free reign to do as they please. Stop being a fucking idiot and think about it: if there is no God, no standard for morality, THEN THERE IS NO FUCKING REASON NOT TO RAPE, MURDER, AND PILLAGE! Unless you feel like conforming to what society says; at which point you aren't really free.
Morality IS intrinsic. Riddle me this: how is that you decide that the moral code of the Bible is good and applicable? You decide it's good because you ALREADY have an inherent sense of morality. You didn't use the Bible to decide the Bible's moral code was good, right? You decided before you knew what the whole book had to say, i'm sure.
It breaks down like this: If everyone followed a particular moral code, no matter how dubious, how would the world fair as a result? If all society breaks down under its scripture, then the morality doesn't work in society. People understand how to act (i.e. don't lie, be altruistic, consider other's opinions) because these are ways that allow people to function in society as a whole. Everyone WANTS everyone else to be moral because it is USEFUL to have everyone think this way. The truth of the matter is, this is how things really are.
Stupid Example: Is there a rule that says people have to wait in line at gas stations for service? Nope. It's just a useful, easy to understand way to act. So, everyone follows suit. Same goes for the rapin', murderin', and lyin'. If everyone lied, then lies would lose their meaning and it would be incredibly difficult to communicate. Try only speaking lies and going to the grocery store, try driving on the other side of the street. It won't work. Why? Because everyone else is ON THEIR OWN following common morality to make their own lives easier and, by proxy, everyone else's.
The entire basis of your argument is fallacious. Morality is in no intrinsic. Think about it, when growing up you were told to stop doing bad things all the time by your parents. you were taught how to be good and moral whilst there was no training needed for you to be bad. you say, try driving on the opposite side of the street. It won't work. Why? Not because everyone else is on their own following common morality. No. It is because a higher authority, such as someone who designs roads, decided it would be best to drive on the right side. It's actually a law to do that, not just following common morality. You may not have needed to be trained to understand this law, but through observation on the law working you figured it out. Therefore, God had to give us a set of rules, because man was chaotic and immoral. Now, you mat not believe in God. Let me put it this way to you then. Some random higher authority decided to keep humanity from just killing everyone and doing wrong all the time that he would put some nice rules in order for us to follow.
Morals, like everything else in society are created over a long period of time and improved upon generation after generation. This is why in the past slavery was deemed morally fine, yet today it is not. (Ever wonder why slavery is in the bible and apparently god is cool with it?)
Yes, I have wondered why slavery is in the Bible. So I sought answers, have you? Our beliefs on slavery are not the same as they were then, or at least the way God desired it to be. A slave was simply someone who, more or less, worked for someone else and lived with them. Similar to the way slaves were as the way we know them, however slaves for "Christian" people were not to be treated horribly, and they were not. They were treated well, fed well and lived well. A slave was also generally someone who was in debt to the person who owned them. They were working to pay off there debt. This may not be the case for the non-Christian people, but that is not of whom I'm speaking. They were not in the business of buying and selling slaves to do all their work for them.
slaves could also buy there freedom which is not the case as we generally look at slavery. In this view of slavery, as it was then, there existed nothing wrong.
LOL, riiiiight... how do you think the pyramids were built? With sunshine and happiness?
ROFL, you're a joke dude. You can't seriously believe that tripe..
Once again I implore you to stop using logical fallacies to attempt to win your argument. What I'm mean by this is that saying I am a joke does nothing to disprove anything I have said, and it does nothing for you. no one will listen to anything you have to say if all you do is attack the other person. Stop!
Pyramids were built with slaves. these slaves were treated badly most of the time. This is also not the slavery that, as you say, "God was cool with." God is very much not cool with that sort of slavery. However, in argument I made I told you what sort of slavery he was okay with, and people were not necessarily following this, which is why he laid out guidelines for slaves and their masters. As I said before, the part you probably ignored because you were unsure how to refute it, slaves, the salves I am speaking of were in debt to their masters. They were slaves because they owed some amount of money or something else to their owner. They way, in those times, that the person worked it off was by becoming their slave. Working for them to pay off their debt to one day buy their freedom from their debt.
How about "I don't want to rape anyone because I don't think it's right to hurt people"?
If there is no standard for morality, then yes. You're right. But there is, it's called Humanity. We can do what we want, but even the most atheist of atheists knows it's wrong to rape someone.
For the record, (so you know my stance), I am agnostic, that wonderful lukewarm label. But that's all it is: a label. I don't really care for religion, but I won't disrespect it.
That said, I don't really believe in your God, so does that make me a rapist?
False.
Morals ARE man made. Religions simply echo the moral knowledge we already had.
Allow me to give you an example of this: The bible says murder is wrong, and you agree, it is...
Except...
Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Suddenly, I'm not so sure what to think. After all, if I'm deriving my morality from the bible, I'm suddenly given moral permission to murder people for these seemingly random acts. Working on a Sunday is reason to kill? Wow, and you're accusing me of having no morals...
It's pretty obvious to me that everyone has intrinsic moral sensibilities and that we pick and choose what we agree with from books like the bible or order to reinforce our moral beliefs.
In the end, we all have morals, and we have them because it allows us to operate in a society, without them, society would not work. None of this has anything to do with god or gods.
Actually, sir, though I understand your point in itself, it's a bit fallacious to make the jump as you have. I agree with what you say about morality being intrinsically societal, but the jump you make between "shall surely be put to death" and "murder" is one that is surely fallacious. Obviously, it is interdependent on your connotative definition of each of the words -- Wittgenstein would agree, and most likely tell you the argument is unnecessary as words never truly mean what we intend them to -- but ultimately, what you've said here means that punishment is the same as crime. Unless you're one who equates all human death as murder, then this logic cannot follow. Your argument is essentially saying that punishment of death is murder, and is immoral. Many might agree, but this is subjective. You've simply brought up a biblical image of the modern day argument for or against capital punishment. These scriptures by no means give a "license to kill" as your insinuating. They are simply laying out punishments for the breaking of biblical law, which was obviously very different than the laws of today.
I understand the apprehension to the idea of a "god." You can believe whatever you'd like, but if you're claiming "logic" as your guide, or even fact, then don't try to make fallacious connections like these.
It's cute how you think you're so clever, but this was the ancient Jews, the Old Testament. As in: doesn't apply now. This was the norm back then for everyone, even non-Jews. The Egyptians would sacrifice their first-borns for the sake of battle. And the difference between murder and kill is subtle, but there is one lemmie show you:
Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of.
Murdering is killing in hate. Whereas killing is simply that: killing. The death penalty which many people are FOR is not called murder by the proponents, but is by anyone who opposes it. What you're doing is called framing the argument. I'm not exactly sure what your point is... You aren't good at that part but you can frame and argument pretty well.
But allow me to point out something I find interesting: your use of the word intrinsic. Now this word means belonging to a thing by its very nature. I.e. not taught or learned, but ingrained in. Atheists views cannot have intrinsic moral codes. That would imply that he/she was born with a moral code. But wait! Wouldn't that mean that some people could "mutate" and be born with a different moral code? So... Someone who was born with a propensity to murder, rape, and pillage... Well surely we can't blame them for following their moral code. “Remorse for what? You people have done everything in the world to me. Doesn't that give me equal right?” Charles Manson said this. He felt he had the RIGHT to kill people. He had no moral objection to this. So this is the type of person that atheism must accept or risk being hypocritical. You can't say "People are born with a moral code! You have to accept that!" and then deny Charles Manson his right to murder. So here's my frame: Without God, who gave us a reason not to murder, why not murder? Charles Manson surely did. He was not by any means a Christian. Before you go into the crusades and all that non-sense, a true Christian is defined by who they follow and obey. So a Christian who murders is not a Christian. By definition a Christian follows Christ who taught peace and love. 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 is a nice verse about that. Mark 12:31 is another.
you spend a lot of time talking about how basically "God" is the only reason you don't kill and rape and murder......
Wow. You just dedicated a whole paragraph to a definition that was "framed" as you so nicely put it and you failed to notice that the word "intrinsic"-not taught or learned, but ingrained in could also include instinct... as in hunting, knowing how to eat, caring for young, all of which are attributes that all animals on this planet posses without a moral code
You are a moron.
There is no way to prove 100% that God exist or doesn't exist. I am not here to defend my faith based beliefs with facts. All I know is what has been revealed to me through the word of God and through my persistent faith in Jesus. If one does not attempt to seek out truth it will not be found. However anyone can take fact and hold onto it for a lifetime and insist I must be a fool. The world is flat and revolves around the sun. To me it seems foolish to KNOW there is no God and yet say all is subjective. If I am wrong, what do I lose? I will gladly be the "idiot" on this one. I don't watch fox news, in fact I generally try to seek out non-biased new. Also I embrace existentialism. Philosophy and science, to me (seeing as all is opinion and none is fact), continue to "disprove" God yet show the desperate need for humans to have purpose and to have reason, even if that reason being to disprove reason and purpose. I am glad my comment has bothered so many of you. May the grace and peace of Jesus Christ be with you.
The thing that bothers me is the fact that you and so many people even believe what you are saying.
It's a little bit like Communism, it looks good on paper and sounds great read out loud, but in reality, it just doesn't work.
'socialism without jails', just works.
there's typos all over this.
*There are typos all over this.
I'd buy this on cafepress.
Wow how original! (not) Where have I heard this before...oh, from France's most famous and iconic postmodern philosopher...
I'll give you all a hint. Starts with an "S" and ends in "arte".
Bit of a puerile comment for a Sartre fan. Anyway, I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first one to express ideas on this, and he certainly wasn't the last.
You think you can come up with a more original philosophy? You're the one who's using the title of someone else's play for a username.
nihilism is fun to practice, NOT
Actually, the philosophy in question here looks to be closer to Absurdism as a nihilist would not seek to create their own meaning.
It would have to depend. After all, Nietzsche would argue that you Should make your own meaning, and he was one of the forefathers of nihilism, or he has been labeled as such anyway.
Nietzsche was terrified of Nihilism; he spoke of it being inevitable and indisputable.
It is existentialism. Pure sarte kids.
If there is no God and gods, no morals and the universe is not moving towards any higher purpose what exactly is the basis for your "advice"? What difference does it make if someone else believes there is a purpose and acts accordingly?
What you have declared is that no one can expect YOU to act morally and for those that do believe in morality, you are an enemy whose very existence is a threat to theirs.
You're looking at this with a view of the entire world. This advice is completely selfish, it's all about each individual in themselves; it has nothing to do with you until you take it on and even hen only your following of it would be anything to do with you.
Actually I was trying to prove the ridiculousness of attempting to "advise" someone else on what they "should" do after denying the basis for any "should".
Any advise about what a person should do assumes there is a higher purpose to one's existence than acting on immediate impulses. If a higher purpose is denied, any "should" is logically meaningless.
However, there are a lot of people babbling such illogical bullshit, some are simply not too bright and some are deliberate manipulators. I was trying to figure out which category the people here belong to.
Yea the absurdists and nihilist are gonna declare a war on morality, oh wait they do not believe in morals. But great job projecting your personal beliefs onto a otherwise cool explanation of absurdism.
Happiness.
Whose happiness? And why should anyone believe your recipe for happiness? What makes you think you know better how others can achieve their happiness than they do themselves?
Obviously your own happiness. You knew the answer to that man, you are just trying to be a douche with the pretense of philosophical basis. Aren't you cool?
It is not that obvious. If it is my happiness that you someone else is referring to, what makes that person so sure it comes from following his/her advice? Why couldn't the advice simply be "Do whatever makes you happy"? If that means my believing in some invisible God who created the universe some 6000 years ago and will make hand me down eternal bliss/misery based on some things that I believe in or not, so be it?
So it is OBVIOUS the basis for the advice is most certainly NOT the happiness of the person being advised.
It is suggesting that really happiness can only be found by shrugging off concepts like that. I can't begin to image how you could not tell then end goal of those practices was happiness.
Maybe it turns out that that doesn't lead to happiness. But you know what? That's its goal. Which you are somehow suggesting isn't clear? Notice how you are the only on who doesn't understand that.
What makes you think you know better than someone else what they should practice to get what they want, be it happiness or something else. Or are you suggesting that there are some absolutes that you have discovered and the others haven't that you feel compelled to share with others?
just reading this whole little thing bewtween rob and ganap. dude Danapati, retard.
If I had any doubts before about the intellectual capabilities of those impressed with the text in the picture, you removed all of them. Congratulations!
You've done equally well in my books with your promotion of invisible sky gods that dictate morality for humans.
I don't remember promoting invisible sky gods dictating morality for humans. But I can understand why you have to imagine things that others haven't said.
"If there is no God and gods, no morals and the universe is not moving towards any higher purpose what exactly is the basis for your "advice"?"
You tell me, what is the implication of this statement? You essentially postulated that we require gods to have purpose or advice.
Not necessarily. A universe moving inexorably towards a higher purpose will do. Those who believe in God assume the purpose was the purpose of creation. But the universe could be evolving in a purposeful manner without anyone positing a creator of the universe.
"But the universe could be evolving in a purposeful manner without anyone positing a creator of the universe. "
Feel free to enlighten me as to what that purpose is and why you think the morals of humans have any effect on the universe, or for that matter, anything other than our tiny civilization.
I do not know what the purpose is.
Morality is what allows settled human existence and allows these societies to grow in size, but has no biological/evolutionary basis (check with Dr. Dawkins, if you don't believe me). Large settled societies are the only way knowledge gets accumulated leading to the technology we see around us today. We have certainly managed to impact significantly the tiny planet we live on in the last couple of hundred years and given that there are at least a few billion years to go before this planet is not suitable for habitation for the likes of us, not sure why you would doubt what kind of impact our successors would have on the universe.
Let me guess, if I believe in your invisible man in the sky, I'll gain all the fulfillment I've ever wanted and will live on forever and ever, and feel loved and all that, right?
Feel free to back up any of your believes with any actual proof.
you heard that on zeitgeist, talk for yourself
What the hell is zeitgeist?
Where did I mention an invisible man in the sky? Don't attempt strawman arguments.
Ab assertion has been made here and not by me. The onus is on those who make the assertions (and those that believe them) to either accept the logical conclusions of the assertion or reconsider the assertion.
Anyone who believes there are no morals is called a scoundrel/crook and is unworthy of trust. It is amazing that someone can actually declare himself/herself a crook and still expect to be believed/trusted. Are you fishing for absolute retards who are incapable of logic and will believe anything that claims to be "atheistic"?
I think that anyone can find beauty in the argument that is existentialism. Take out all the stuff about their not being a God and really they are just telling you to take advantage of the life that you have and not get so caught up in the afterlife that you don't experience what God gave you.
It makes sense if you believe in God. However, if you don't one particular way of existence has no special significance over another. Why would anyone need someone else to tell them which way they should live, since there is no absolute reference anyway?
"Anyone who believes there are no morals is called a scoundrel/crook and is unworthy of trust."
Care to substantiate or are you just talking out of your ass? Haha.
Define your own morals you lazy ass. Quite following and start leading.
Examples of those who don't believe in morals are bandits, murderers, rapists etc. Yeah, sure, around where I live we call them scoundrels and crooks. It is possible, such are role models where you live.
"Absolute morals," not "any morals at all." The idea that there are no morals that exist is so ludicrous that I find it hilarious that you even entertain it as a valid point to attack.
It is not such a ludicrous idea.
Normal concept of morality is that they are discovered, not made up. All morality flows from a supposed higher purpose, a purpose higher than the individual in question. Denying such a basis is denying a basis to judge inidvidual actions. Nothing can be declared wrong. Chew on that for a while, so you may understand it.
Yes, it is a ludicrous idea that he was actually claiming that there are no morals at all. Obviously people follow morals. To entertain that as an argument is hilariously childish.
No the "normal" concept is that morals are human constructs. Only religion claims that there are absolutes. The hell do you eman bby "normal" anyway? You are just throwing out vague words now in an attempt to profound. The consensus in philosophy is that humans construct their own morals. This is based on the vast difference in morals from culture to culture. Simple really....
You judge individual actions based on your own reasoning and emotions, not on this "higher power" you speak of. Sure some people try to base it all on a god, and that is exactly what this is saying not to do. You are free of constructs like that
Obviously most people believe in a God or gods, but that doesn't stop you from denying Him/them, right? So even if it is obvious that most people believe in morals, whether they follow them or violate them, why should that stop you from denying anything called morals actually exist.
By normal, I meant popularly understood. Yes, religious people do believe that morals are handed down by super-human entities and many of them believe their morals are universally applicable across all places and times and the morals of different sets of people differ.
Length of day and night vary from place to place and around the year. I don't see anybody denying the existence of "absolute" day and night or saying they are "human" constructs. Day and night exist and they are recognitions of a phenomenon that is not man made.
I don't partcularly care what the "consensus in philosophy" is, I am not trying to get a degree in philosophy nor do I believe the "consensus in philosophy" somehow is a commandment for me.
If you say each individual is the basis for his own morality, you are saying that no one can be morally wrong and you can be expected to feel morally right whatever you do including murder, plunder and rape exactly as I have been saying all along.
What exactly are you differing with me on, that your morality derived exclusively from yourself somehow prevents you from being a murderer, plunderer or rapist? If so, do let me know how.
You accuse me of making strawman arguments, then you go and state that people without morals are bandits, murderers and rapists? That a hypocrite.
Have you ever heard of a person without morals? There's no such things. There are simply people with *different* morals than you.
"There are no morals" is an assertion made in the picture that we are all commenting on. If you don't agree with it, don't try to defend it.
I said bandits, murderers and rapists are examples of those without morals. But sure, if someone claimed a complete absense of any morals, as the picture asserts, I don't see any reason to trust them not to murder, plunder or rape if they had an opportunity and could get away with it.
Morality, whatever it is, is a code of conduct that is to be held above oneself. So when someone says it is morally wrong to do such and such, he/she means do not do it even if doing so benefits you or makes you happy. Morality automatically implies a purpose for one's existence that is above one's own happiness or interests. If you deny a purpose for your existence that is not of your own making, you deny a basis for any morality.
Having different moral standards is different from having none. If you are an atheist but do have moral standards, most likely you don't have a logically consistent basis for the standards. You can be an atheist without being omniscient. It doesn't hurt to admit that one doesn't really know if life and universe have a purpose, but one rejects the claims and motivations of the religious people while accepting those aspects of religious morality like speaking the truth, not stealing, not murdering etc. that form the foundations of a stable and harmonious social existence.
But if you make claims like "there are no morals, the universe is not moving inexorably towards any higher purpose", you are on a very shaky ground trying to convince anyone that you are not a potential bandit, murderer or rapist if not already one.
You clearly misunderstand the statement "there are no morals." Literally that means no living person abides by morals. This is obviously not true so you must take it figuratively, ie. there are no absolute morals. How is this possibly difficult?
The thing doesn't claim that people have no morals. You have to do more than just read it literally man, you can't expect us to do all the work for you.
That would have been an explanation worthy of a religious scholar referring to their texts :-)
Yes, often people use arguments that are similar to each other.
You suggest though, that because I use a similar argument I must be either flawed or hypocritical? The naivety of that statement is profound. Take my words for their meaning, not for their similarity to other statements. My point still stands, you are using a straw man by misunderstanding the point and then attacking that, then using a fallacy to claim something about my point. Honestly man. Make some logical statements....not this rubish.
I am not suggesting your argument if flawed because it is similar to a religious argument. I am saying it is flawed AND hilariously similar to a religious argument.
If I am supposed to read an unwritten "absolute" before morals, am I also supposed to read some other adjectives before the others that have been denied to exist in the same sentence, like God or gods and the next part as well?
In any case, your concept of morality (only an self-defined reference and no external reference) is no different from having no morals. Since you are your own standard, there is nothing you may not be expected to do (or feel guilty if you do) including actions that are considered horrendous enough by those in your vicinity that they would be willing to take your life or liberty away for committing them.
I completely disagree with you Ganapati.
The picture does not assert that there are no morals.
There is no such thing as a being with no morals. There are beings with different morals than yours.
"murderers and rapists" are not examples of those without morals, they are examples of those with different morals.
Or examples of those with the same morals as you who know it is wrong to murder but have an urge to do so that is stronger than them.
There are too many shades of gray for you to generalize this
I suggest you read the text in the picture once again. Right under the title is the text "There is no God or gods, there are no morals, the universe is not moving inexorably towards any higher purpose".
Murderer and rapists have "different" morals? I am impressed with your concept of morals.
In the concept of morality that I know, it is a set of rules that one accepts as the right, regardless of whether they benefit one or make one happy in a given instance. Under my morality a murderer, bandit or a rapist is morally wrong. If the person also accepts that he/she committed something that is morally wrong, we call it a moral failing. However if the person claims to be right, we don't call it as "having a different set of morals", simply as one without morals.
When I talk about differences is moral standards I am referring to culture specific things like respecting one's elders etc. If you believe habitual lying, cheating, murdering, raping, plundering are right under some "moral" code, I will have to assume you are either guilty of or potentially capable of any or all of them.
Like he said, the world is not black and white.
Some people view abortion as murder. Some people think killing stem cells is murder. Some people think killing a cow is murder. Some people think stepping on an ant is murder.
Once you get your head out of your ass, you'll realize that there is no definitive set of morals that are 'standardized' across all humans. Different people have different views. Get it in your head.
What constitues murder is a different question from whether murder is immoral or not.
Whether we can agree on all things moral or not is different from whether you have a concept of morality or not.
Someone who does not believe abortion as murder, but murder as morally reprehensible is someone I don't have to feel any threat from. However someone who believes there is nothing wrong with murder as long as he has some profit from it is someone who threatens me by his/her existence and I will take mesures to ensure such people do not enjoy the freedoms moral human beings enjoy.
Billy Talty, whoever you are, does not know, could not know if what he believes is true. It is pure assumption and it is foolish. I would much rather be a slave to 'Jabber the hut' then to ever be subjected from the flawed and greedy ideals of the one, true, none existent GOD. If you feel uneasy in what this says, 'An hero' yourself. Do not disregard the flaws in religion trust in this new ideal of 'Making Your Name'. There is no Father no heaven; evolution has created you, everyone has flaws.. you could also call that evolution? And to whoever wrote this: Perfect, love it, need more ppl to light the new way :) eat a dick and die Billy... fucking bible bashers
Cheeeeesyyyy
Who ever wrote this not only has the spirit of the anti-christ but does not know, could not know if this were true. It is pure assumption and it is foolish. I would much rather be a slave to Jesus then ever be freed from the perfect and purposeful ideals of the one, true, living GOD. If you feel uneasy in what this says, seek out answers. Do not disregard the passing down of generations of knowledge for this new idea that we have no meaning but to create a name for ourselves. There is a Father in heaven who has allowed you to be created, and he has loved you despite your flaws, cause we all have them. And to whoever wrote this: if what you say is true, please, please kill yourself because you spelled "you" where you obviously meant "your" in the 8th line of text.
I'm sorry. "Do not disregard the passing down of generations of KNOWLEDGE for this new idea ... There is a father in heaven ... yada yada ... " ? This new idea is foolish? It is assumption? Perfect ideals of God? Hang on a minute. You are implying that there is no back up to this new idea. Uh... where's the back up to the generations of 'Knowledge' that has been passed down? Where's the proof of the father in heaven? I'm not saying I disagree with religion, and I'm not saying I agree with it either. I am merely pointing out your hipocrisy (sp?).
P.S. I love you for correcting grammar. Just putting that out there.
Yuh an' if u dun like A-mer-i-ca u kin giiiiit out! Let me guess, you watch FOX news and if it were not for Jesus you would worship Sean Hannity & Ann Coulter, wait you already do. As Jim Crawford said, "Man has always required an explanation for all of those things in the world he did not understand. If an explanation was not available, he created one"... like you have. Oh mah gawd teh ante-geist is amung uz!
im sorry but pure assumption is assuming there was some angry being in the sky who hated us so much that he sent his son down so we could kill him and then "he" called it even. sure christianity has great lessons on morality and how to be a good human, but you really think there's a magical floating consciousness in control of everyone's fate? they don't even care if you're a good person... if you believe in Jesus they say you will go to heaven. so what is the "meaning" of following christianity? there only real answer is that there are no answers. we're alone, we have no idea why we're here, and we're stranded in the middle of an inconceivably large universe stranded on this rock. if you think you have an answer, you have a serious case of megalomania, just like all the rest of the religious nuts out there.
why do you call God angry? he loved the world so much that he gave his son so that we could go to heaven upon believing (john 3:16). the bible makes many references to the heavenly FATHER so yes, it would be a 'he'. in my opinion the "christian life style" is much more practical than otherwise. say what you will, but if you think about it, abstaining from sins will make life much easier down the road (not just in a spiritual sense). there are answers. not all of them, but some. just because you havent found them yet does not mean they do not exist. i may be a religious nut, but i would ask that you please not generalize like that. i dont know your background. i dont know what youve been through. i do know that there is a God out there, and hes searching for you.
Obvious Troll is Obvious. BUT if you would rather be a slave, than thats your prerogative. excuse me while i go live.
The spirit of the anti-christ? What are you smoking?
Let me ask you this. What if a religion believes that you should make up your own morals to live by? Or what if a religion believes that there Gods are not immortal or what if a religion was proven? Then what would you do? Would you join that religion if it was proven scientifically to be truth? Now think about this if you were a god and lived in your own world where you had peers and people on earth decided to stop believing in you would you feel compelled to make them believe? would you care that they stopped? I sure as hell wouldn't You see I believe in what I believe cause I want to and I have good reasons for believing it and when you try to shove your atheist ways down my throat I get just as pissed as when a christian does it. I know my religion is true and it honestly doesn't matter what you believe or worship so I have no need or want to collect followers. As far as I am concerned the christian God is false and I don't go out of my way too make the point because I don't give a shit.
your just being IGNORANT
All of you would very likely benefit from calming yourselves by going into a nice quiet room, sitting in a comfortable position and chanting, "Peace, peace, peace." It would call upon your true nature which is to move in harmony with the normal healthy functioning of the body/mind. This is accomplished primarily through the breath while concentrating upon the total body being. When this becomes the daily practice of the true philosopher, the heart is more open and the mind is free to create. Creation is the process of the entire universe. When one is aligned with this reality, clarity of ones purpose is realized. Then can go forth and establish relationships which are productive and have conversations which produce wonderful things for ones own self as well as for others. This is where morality springs from. One finds rhythm in the breath the beating of the heart, the turning of the world into night and day. Sanity and maturity is restored to the individual, and this, not quailing, childish name-calling and lording about our egos with who is right and who is wrong, is the basis for understanding. That is after all the only true reason for communication between true philosophers of life. With this in mind, we invite you all to go forth and do good things for yourselves and for one another, as well. In short we might say,without sarcasm, and in all sincerity, "Get a life." Peace!